Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of a Learned Single Judge allowing a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance. The suit was instituted by the First and Second Respondents (original plaintiffs) against the First and Second Appellants (defendants) for enforcement of a letter of allotment dated 10 November 2005 for a residential flat. The Third Appellant, who is the father of the Second Appellant, entered into an agreement with the First Appellant on 2 August 2008, subsequent to the plaintiffs' agreement. The plaintiffs sought to implead the Third Appellant as a subsequent purchaser and also sought to implead a Third Respondent with whom a licence agreement was entered into. However, during the hearing, the plaintiffs' counsel stated that the Third Respondent had vacated the premises and that part of the amendment was not pressed. The only issue was whether the impleadment of the Third Appellant was proper. The court noted that the Third Appellant claims title under the First Appellant and does not claim a title adverse to his vendor. The court held that the amendment was necessary for the determination of the real controversy and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Learned Single Judge was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser - Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to implead a subsequent purchaser who claims title under the vendor. The court held that since the subsequent purchaser does not claim a title adverse to the vendor, no prejudice is caused to the defendants. The amendment was allowed as it was necessary for the determination of the real controversy. (Paras 2-5) B) Specific Performance - Subsequent Purchaser - Impleadment - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, a subsequent purchaser claiming under the vendor is a necessary party. The court held that the subsequent purchaser's rights are derivative and his impleadment is essential to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectively adjudicate the dispute. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Learned Single Judge was in error in allowing the amendment of the plaint to implead a subsequent purchaser who claims under the vendor, and whether such amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Learned Single Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint is upheld. The Third Appellant is to be impleaded as a party to the suit.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- impleadment of subsequent purchaser
- specific performance
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- no prejudice
- subsequent purchaser claiming under vendor
