Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sandeep Ramesh Solanki and others, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, rejecting their application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Special Civil Suit No. 361 of 2000. The suit was instituted by respondents no. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) against respondents no. 3 to 7 (defendants) for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.08.1999 executed by defendants no. 1 to 4 in respect of a suit plot owned by the Sanyukt Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Society (defendant no. 5). The plaintiffs were members and allottees of the society. During the pendency of the suit, defendants no. 3 and 4 surrendered the suit plot to the society, and the society executed a lease dated 08.03.2004 in favour of the petitioners, with defendants no. 3 and 4 as consenting parties. The petitioners claimed possession was handed over to them on 19.01.2004. The petitioners sought impleadment on the ground that they were necessary and proper parties as they had acquired leasehold rights and possession. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties. The High Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the petitioners were not necessary parties because no relief was claimed against them, and they were not proper parties because their presence was not required for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants. The court noted that the petitioners' rights, if any, would be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and they could pursue their remedies separately. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment - Necessary and Proper Party - Order I Rule 10(2) CPC - Petitioners claiming leasehold rights from defendant-society after suit for specific performance was filed are not necessary parties as no relief is sought against them, nor are they proper parties as their presence is not required for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants - Held that the trial court correctly rejected the application (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who obtained a lease of the suit property from the defendant-society after the suit for specific performance was filed, are necessary or proper parties to the suit and entitled to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application for impleadment. The court held that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Impleadment
- Specific performance
- Transfer of property pending suit
- Lis pendens
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 163
Writ Petition No. 4441 of 2018
Shri. A.M. Kulkarni for Petitioners, Shri. S.S. Shah i/b. Datta H. Pawar for Respondent No. 1 & 2, Mr. P.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No. 4 to 6
Sandeep Ramesh Solanki, Sagar Ramesh Solanki, Smt. Suvarna Ramesh Solanki
Sou. Shevanti Dadoba Nashte, Sou. Shailaja Pravin Nashte, Shri. Bhikaji Vasudeo Lad (deceased) through LR Sumitra Bhikaji Lad (deleted), Umesh Bhikaji Lad, Sanjay Bhikaji Lad, Ramesh Bhikaji Lad, Sanyukt Maharashtra Coop. Housing Society Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to be impleaded as parties to Special Civil Suit No. 361 of 2000.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed leasehold rights and possession over the suit property acquired during pendency of the suit and asserted they were necessary and proper parties.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the application on 18.11.2017, holding that petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit for specific performance?
Whether the petitioners are proper parties whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had acquired leasehold rights and possession, and their presence was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to protect their interests.
Respondents contended that petitioners were not necessary or proper parties as no relief was sought against them, and their rights would be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who acquires an interest in the suit property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance is not a necessary or proper party to the suit, as no relief is claimed against such person, and the suit can be effectively and completely adjudicated without their presence. Such person's rights are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and they may pursue their remedies separately.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit as no relief is claimed against them.
The petitioners are not proper parties as their presence is not required for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants.
The rights of the petitioners, if any, would be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No. 361 of 2000 was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 for specific performance. During its pendency, petitioners obtained a lease from the defendant-society. Petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment, which was rejected by the trial court on 18.11.2017. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10(2)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 52
- Constitution of India: Article 227
