High Court of Karnataka Hears Writ Petition on Impleadment of Additional Defendants in Specific Performance Suit — Considers Proper Party Test Under Order I Rule 10 CPC

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale; writ petition under Article 227 challenging interlocutory order allowing impleadment of additional defendants.

Petitioner-plaintiff sought quashing of trial court's order dated 05.01.2022 allowing I.A.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, thereby impleading respondents 9 to 53 as defendants in O.S.No.198/2020.

The trial court allowed the application for impleadment filed by persons claiming to have purchased plots from the suit property, which the petitioner contended were not parties to the agreement and not necessary or proper parties to the suit for specific performance.

In O.S.No.198/2020, the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala allowed I.A.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on 05.01.2022. Prior litigation included an injunction suit decreed in favour of the respondents, and an order of the Assistant Commissioner under the SC/ST Act restoring land was set aside in appeal, with a subsequent writ petition dismissed.

Whether in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, third parties who claim to have purchased sites from the suit property from the defendant and are in possession can be impleaded as defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC when they are not parties to the agreement.

Petitioner: The proposed defendants are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2016 and the suit being for specific performance, they are neither necessary nor proper parties. The suit property is agricultural land and not converted, and the claim of layout formation is baseless. A third party to a contract cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance. Respondents: The original land owner sold the suit property to Kamalamma who sold to late Mariyappa, who then formed a layout after obtaining permissions and sold sites to the proposed defendants between 1998-2004. The proposed defendants are bonafide purchasers in possession under registered sale deeds. Their rights will be directly affected if the suit for specific performance is decreed, and they are proper parties necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. They relied on previous litigation establishing their possession and the setting aside of a restoration order under the SC/ST Act.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 05.01.2022 passed on I.A.3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code in O.S.No.198/2020 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, whereby the I.A.No.3 was allowed. The proposed defendants are claiming that they are the purchasers of sites carved out from the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.198/2020 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.06.2016 against defendants 1 to 8 (legal heirs of late Mariyappa). During pendency, respondents 9 to 53 filed I.A.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment as defendants, which was allowed by the trial court on 05.01.2022. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order I Rule 10(2)
• Constitution of India: Article 227
• Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: Section 5