Gurdev Singh vs Paras Ram and another

G.C. Mital, J.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Naranjan Singh agreed to sell one plot of land to Parsa Ram. Naranjan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid contract. In that suit Gurdev Singh and Prem Singh filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as defendants on the plea that the plot, which Naranjan Singh agreed to sell to the plaintiff, was not owned by him and had fallen to their share in family partition and, therefore, the alleged agreement of sale could not be specifically enforced. The trial Court rejected that application by order dated 21.5.1984. This is the revision against that order by the persons who sought to be impleaded as defendants in the suit.

I have gone through the application of the revision petitioners. It is clearly averred therein that Naranjan Singh did not own the plot which he agreed to sell and that plot was in their exclusive possession as owners. On these facts, they would be necessary parties for determination of the controversy. If they are not impleaded as parties and without determination of the point whether Naranjan Singh owned this plot or not, the suit for specific performance is decreed, there will be another round of litigation at the time of execution or in a separate suit and since the suit is at the initial stage, it was just and proper to implead the revision petitioners as defendants in the suits so that whole controversy could be determined at one and the same time.

Shri Munishwar Puri was very emphatic in urging that no revision lies and particularly in the absence of any failure of justice with the revision petitioners. In this case I find that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in not granting the application and in any case acted illegally with material irregularity in not properly appreciating the facts of the case. This is a fundamental error of procedure in the order of the Court below on which revision is competent.

As regards failure of justice, this point goes in favour of the revision petitioners because in case they are not impleaded as defendants, there will be failure of justice qua them and so far as the plaintiff is concerned, he will not at all be at loss because the matter would be gone into in his presence.

The revision, accordingly, stands allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 200/ and the order of the Court below is set aside. The application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is allowed and the revision petitioners are ordered to be added as defendants to the suit. The trial Court will give opportunity to the added defendants to file their written statement and on the basis of the written statement and in view of the application to be filed by the plaintiff, the necessary issues would be framed and the matter would be tried in accordance with law.