Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Nipun Thakkar, filed Chamber Summons No. 524 of 2013 seeking impleadment as a party in Execution Application (L) No. 370 of 2012 in Suit No. 2471 of 1984, and also sought deletion of defendant nos. 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(e), and 7, and permission to amend the execution application and related orders. The application was based on four deeds of assignment executed in favour of the applicant by various defendants/assignors: defendant nos. 2(a) to 2(c) on 5 July 2012, defendant no.7 on 5 July 2012, defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(e) on 16 July 2012, and defendant no.10 on 21 March 2014. The assignors were parties to the suit or had been brought on record after the demise of original defendants. The learned counsel for all assignors stated that they no longer claim any right, title, or interest in the property and abide by the deeds of assignment. The chamber summons was opposed by defendant no.5 and the plaintiff. Defendant no.5 argued that the consent terms contained a right of pre-emption, requiring the assignors to first offer their share to other parties before selling, and that the assignors could not be deleted. Additionally, defendant no.5 pointed out that by an order dated 8 May 2013, the applicant was appointed only as a contractor for construction of a compound wall, and no other rights were created. The court considered the submissions and held that the applicant, as an assignee, had acquired interest in the property and was entitled to be impleaded to protect that interest. The right of pre-emption was a separate issue that did not bar impleadment. The court also allowed the deletion of the assignors as they had no further interest. The chamber summons was allowed, and the applicant was permitted to carry out amendments to the execution application and related orders as per the schedule annexed to the chamber summons.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Assignee - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Deed of Assignment - Applicant sought impleadment based on deeds of assignment from several defendants - Court allowed impleadment as applicant had acquired interest in the property - Held that an assignee is entitled to be brought on record to protect his interest (Paras 1-4). B) Right of Pre-emption - Consent Terms - Enforcement - Defendant no.5 opposed impleadment citing right of pre-emption under consent terms - Court noted that right of pre-emption is a separate issue and does not bar impleadment of assignee - Held that the assignee's right to be impleaded is independent of any pre-emption rights (Paras 5-6). C) Civil Procedure - Deletion of Parties - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Assignors sought deletion after assignment - Court allowed deletion as assignors had no further interest - Held that once interest is transferred, the assignor may be deleted from the record (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an assignee of a share in suit property can be impleaded in execution proceedings despite a right of pre-emption clause in consent terms, and whether the assignors can be deleted from the record.
Final Decision
Chamber summons allowed. Applicant is permitted to be impleaded as a party. Assignors (defendant nos. 2(a) to 2(c), 3(a) to 3(e), and 7) are deleted from the record. Applicant is permitted to carry out amendments to the execution application, Judges Order No.58 of 2012, and Judges Order No.59 of 2012 as per the schedule annexed to the chamber summons.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Right of pre-emption
- Deed of assignment
- Impleadment of assignee
- Execution proceedings
