Hemant Gupta, J.@mdashThe challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.05.2006 whereby respondents No.3 to 6 were impleaded as defendants in the present suit for specific performance arising out of an agreement of sale dated 29.04.2005.
2. It is the case of the respondents No.3 to 6 that a separate suit for specific performance has been filed by the said respondents on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 22.08.2005. Respondents no.3 to 6 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Code") on the ground that the suit has been filed in collusion with the defendants and that too on the basis of forged documents. It is alleged that no sale agreement between the parties as is being alleged and the one being put up has been fabricated by them by colluding with each other.
3. It has further been pointed out that actually defendant Surjit Singh Nalwa agreed to sell the house in question to the applicants on the basis of an agreement dated 22.08.2005 at a price of Rs.3 crores. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to him by bank draft and another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on the basis of receipt in cash. It is also pointed out that later on another sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid on cash. On receipt of Rs.50 lacs, Shri Surjit Singh Nalwa applied for No Objection Certificate to the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, by attaching all the papers. The Estate Officer granted No Objection Certificate on 30.09.2005. It is further pointed out that the present suit had been filed on the basis of an agreement executed by one Rupinder Pal Singh, Special Attorney of the owner of the house. The Special Attorney is not on a stamp paper. In view of the averments, the applicants sought to be impleaded in the suit as the agreement allegedly put up by the plaintiff-petitioner is to affect their interest and rights in the suit filed by them. The learned trial Court has passed a detailed order impleading respondents No.3 to 6 as defendants.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the judgments referred to by learned trial Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case and, in fact, the applicants are strangers to the agreement dated 29.4.2005 and, therefore, cannot be impleaded in the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in case reported as
5. A perusal of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Lal''s case (supra) shows that a co-owner has sought to be impleaded in the suit as defendant. It was found that a joint owner is not a necessary party as the decree bind only the executant of the agreement. In the present case, the agreement, basis of the suit, is alleged to be forged and fabricated document and, in fact, that the defendants have colluded with the plaintiff. Therefore, any judgment and decree in the present suit is likely to affect the interest of the applicants. It is a case where the vendor is alleged to have entered upon another agreement. Since the rights of the parties flow from one and same person, therefore, the presence of the applicants would, in fact, facilitate the decision of all the questions between the parties.
6. In Kasturi''s case (supra), Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the tests for impleading a part, in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the code. Such tests are that (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings, (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. Hon''ble Supreme Court has further held that in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, the persons who are not claiming under the vendor but they are claiming adverse to the title of the vendor do not fall in any of the categories enumerated in sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. In the present case, the applicants have sought to implead as defendants drawing title under the vendor and, in fact, alleged that the vendor has colluded with the plaintiff. Therefore, the said judgment, in fact, supports the view that the applicants are necessary parties in the present suit for specific performance.
7. In Anil Kumar Singh''s (supra), it has been held that a person who acquired interest subsequent to the agreement by virtue of a decree of the Court is not necessary party as it is not a matter arising out of or in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions in relation to the claim made in the suit. It has been held that the condition precedent to implead a person as party is that it would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The allegations made by the applicants are in respect of forged and fabricated agreement relied upon by the petitioner in collusion with the vender. If such assertions are correct, the interest of the applicants is likely to be affected and, therefore, they are necessary and proper party in the suit for specific performance.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
