Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Divya Builders, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the respondent, Smt. Suhasini Mankirao Popatkar, in the Court of 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. The suit pertains to land bearing Survey No.4332 at Mouza Babulkheda, Nagpur. The petitioner claimed that the respondent, along with other co-owners and one Ahdeo Kisan Chaure, executed a development agreement on 13th March 2004 in favour of the petitioner, agreeing to allow development of the entire land for valuable consideration. Subsequently, the co-owners partitioned the land via a memorandum of partition deed dated 12th September 2005, whereby the suit land (429.67 sq. meters) came to the respondent's share. After mutation, all co-owners except the respondent and three others executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner sought specific performance of the development agreement against the respondent. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the three other co-owners (who had not executed sale deeds) as party defendants, arguing that they are necessary for effectual adjudication. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the petitioner could not seek specific performance against persons who were not parties to the agreement. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the trial court's order. The court held that the third parties are directly connected with the subject matter of the suit, as they are co-owners and signatories to the development agreement and partition deed. Their presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and to enable the court to pass a complete and binding decree. The court directed the trial court to allow the impleadment application and proceed with the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Impleadment of Third Parties - Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC - Necessary and Proper Parties - The court considered whether third parties who are co-owners and signatories to the development agreement and partition deed are necessary for effectual adjudication of a suit for specific performance. Held that the trial court's rejection of impleadment was erroneous as the third parties are directly connected with the subject matter and their presence is required to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for complete adjudication (Paras 03-08).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for impleadment of third parties as defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, when their presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 11th April 2017, and directed the trial court to allow the application for impleadment of the third parties as defendants in the suit.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC
- impleadment of third parties
- necessary and proper parties
- effectual and complete adjudication
- specific performance of contract
- partition deed
- family settlement
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 149
WRIT PETITION NO. 2322 OF 2017
Shri S. P. Agrawal for the Petitioner, Shri S. B. Walekar for the Respondent
M/s. Divya Builders A Registered Partnership Firm, through its Partner Shri Kamlesh S/o Chandrashekhar Dadhe
Smt. Suhasini Mankirao Popatkar, through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Prashant S/o Shankarrao Popatkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of application for impleadment of third parties as defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to implead three co-owners as party defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the impleadment application on the ground that the petitioner could not seek specific performance against persons not party to the agreement.
Previous Decisions
The 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur rejected the application for impleadment.
Issues
Whether the third parties (co-owners) are necessary or proper parties for effectual adjudication of the suit for specific performance.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the third parties are co-owners and signatories to the development agreement and partition deed, and their presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Respondent opposed the impleadment, contending that the petitioner cannot seek specific performance against persons who are not parties to the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the court may at any stage of the proceedings add any person as a party whose presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute. The third parties, being co-owners and signatories to the development agreement and partition deed, are directly connected with the subject matter and their presence is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the court to pass a complete and binding decree.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ petition challenges an order passed by 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur rejecting an application for impleadment of third parties as party defendants to the petitioner's suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The third parties sought to be impleaded are directly connected with the subject matter of the suit. They are co-owners of the property and signatories to the development agreement and the partition deed.
Their presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead three co-owners as defendants. The 8th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur rejected the application on 11th April 2017. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10(2)
