Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12 August 1981. The plaintiff, Respondent No.1, as chief promoter of a proposed cooperative housing society (Proposed Sanjay Sahakari Grah Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli), entered into an agreement with Piraji Kudle, predecessor-in-title of the Review Petitioners (Smt. Chandrabhaga Ananda Kudle & Anr.), to purchase the suit property for Rs.15,000 for the use of the proposed society. Piraji died before completion, and despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration to Piraji's legal heirs (the Review Petitioners), they refused to complete the sale. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the proposed society was not a legal entity and lacked locus standi. The first appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the promoter had locus to file the suit. The Review Petitioners then filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellate court's decision. The Review Petitioners subsequently filed this review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, arguing that the High Court erred in accepting the appellate court's decision on locus, and that the suit was filed without leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. The High Court, per Justice S.C. Gupte, dismissed the review petition, holding that no error apparent on the record or sufficient reason for review was shown. The court reiterated that the promoter of a proposed cooperative society has locus standi to sue for specific performance, and the absence of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not invalidate the suit. The review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Record - Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record or sufficient reason shown - The court held that the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for rehearing of the matter and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any new matter or evidence that could not be produced earlier (Paras 3-4). B) Specific Performance - Locus Standi - Promoter of Proposed Cooperative Society - The court held that a promoter of a proposed cooperative society has locus standi to file a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, even if the society is unregistered, and the suit is not by an unincorporated association of persons (Para 2). C) Civil Procedure - Representative Suit - Order 1 Rule 8 CPC - The court held that absence of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not invalidate a suit filed by a promoter on behalf of a proposed society, as the promoter is the real plaintiff (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the record or any other sufficient reason for review of the order dated 3 February 2017 dismissing the second appeal.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on record
- discovery of new evidence
- or sufficient reason
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Promoter of proposed cooperative society has locus standi to sue for specific performance
- Unincorporated association can sue through promoter without leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC
