Balwant Kaur vs Mandeep Singh and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Balwant Kaur has assailed order dated

28.04.2011 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4

moved by petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for becoming party to the suit which has been

instituted by respondent No. 1- plaintiff-Mand eep Singh against respondent No. 2-Charanjit Singh-defendant. Respondent No. 1 has filed suit

against respondent No. 2 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.09.2007 allegedly executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of

respondent No. 1. Petitioner herein is wife of respondent No. 2-defendant. The petitioner in her application alleged that in family settlement dated

15.12.1985, the suit property was given by respondent No. 2-defendant to the petitioner in lieu of her maintenance and since then she is owner in

possession of the suit property. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order Annexure P-5 which is under challenge in this

revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being owner in possession of the suit property is necessary party to the suit. Reliance has

been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai & others versus Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal

Chordia (D) & others, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 524.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff contended that petitioner is stranger to the agreement in question for specific

performance whereof suit has been filed and, therefore, petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit. In support of this contention,

reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd versus Regency Convention

Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & others, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 551.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Respondent No. 1 has filed suit against respondent No. 2 on the basis of alleged agreement

dated 20.09.2007. Petitioner is not party to the said agreement. Consequently petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit, which

has been instituted for specific performance of the agreement. This view is supported by judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Judgment in the case of Sumtibai (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner is completely

distinguishable on facts. In that case, vendor-defendant had died during pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were impleaded in his place.

The legal representatives wanted to raise a new plea setting up their independent right and not as legal heirs of the deceased vendor. It was held

that legal heirs are entitled to file additional written statement to take up the said plea. This judgment has, therefore, no applicability to the issue

involved in the instant revision petition regarding impleadment of a stranger to the agreement as party to the suit for specific performance of the

agreement. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application moved by the petitioner for becoming party to the suit has been rightly dismissed by

the trial Court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference by this Court

in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly

dismissed.