Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a suit filed by Vinesh Rashmikant Shah and others (Plaintiffs) against Pee Jay Traders and others (Defendants) concerning disputes over four flats (Nos. 901, 902, 1001, 1002) in a building. The Plaintiffs had entered into registered Agreements for Sale with Defendant No. 2 in 2010, but disputes arose regarding possession and performance. The Plaintiffs filed the suit in 2016 seeking specific performance and other reliefs. During the pendency, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into Consent Terms settling their disputes, and the Plaintiffs filed Interim Application No. 55 of 2019 seeking a decree in terms of the Consent Terms under Order XXIII or Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Meanwhile, Zenith Enterprises (Zenith) filed Chamber Summons No. 397 of 2019 seeking impleadment, claiming that it had purchased the same flats from Defendant No. 2 via registered sale deeds in 2013 and had sold them to third parties (Khandwanis). The Court considered both applications together. The Court held that the Consent Terms were lawful and binding between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and directed that a decree be passed in terms thereof. Regarding Zenith's impleadment, the Court observed that Zenith's rights, if any, were independent and not affected by the compromise between the original parties. The Court noted that Zenith had already filed a separate suit (Lodging Summary Suit No. 463 of 2016) and that its interests could be protected in that proceeding. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Chamber Summons for impleadment and allowed the Interim Application for a compromise decree, directing the Plaintiffs to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 2.70 Crores with accrued interest.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - Consent Terms - Court may pass a decree recording compromise if it is lawful and not opposed to public policy - The Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into Consent Terms settling their disputes - The Court held that the compromise is lawful and directed that a decree be passed in terms of the Consent Terms (Paras 1, 2, 3). B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Third-party rights - An intervener claiming independent rights over the suit property may be impleaded if necessary for complete adjudication - Zenith Enterprises claimed rights over the suit flats based on subsequent sale deeds - The Court held that Zenith's rights are not affected by the compromise between the original parties and impleadment is not necessary at this stage (Paras 1, 2, 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court should pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and whether the Applicant/Intervener (Zenith Enterprises) should be impleaded in the Suit.
Final Decision
The Court allowed Interim Application No. 55 of 2019 and directed that a decree be passed in terms of the Consent Terms. The Court dismissed Chamber Summons No. 397 of 2019 for impleadment. The Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2.70 Crores deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master along with accrued interest.
Law Points
- Compromise decree under Order XXIII CPC
- Impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC
- Consent Terms binding on parties
- Third-party rights not affected by compromise between parties
