Kanhaiya Lal vs Viswanath Prasad and Another

B.K. Rathi, J.—The applicant filed the Suit No. 154 of 1991 for specific performance of contract of sale against Respondent No. 2 Amarnath Gupta who is alleged to have executed the agreement. The Respondent No. 1 moved an application for impleading him as a party in the suit. The said application has been allowed by order dated 23.2.2000 by the I Ind Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Shri S. S. Tripathi, counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Tewari for the opposite party No. 1.

The claim of Respondent No. 1 is based on the allegation that he is owner of the property, therefore, Respondent No. 2 has no right to sell the same. However, it is a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The title of the property is not to be decided in the suit. Therefore, the claim of Respondent No. 1 of the ownership is not to be decided in the suit. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party for complete adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit and the questions involved for decision in the case.

I, therefore, find that the trial court has erred in allowing the application of Respondent No. 1. He is not a necessary party as provided in Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure

The revision is allowed with costs. The order dated 23.2.2002 of civil Judge is quashed. The stay order if any is vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.