Madan Lal vs Lahari Ram And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 21.8.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.2.1986 against Lehri Ram. In the written statement filed by Mohini Devi - defendant No.4, who was impleaded as party to the suit as she had purchased the property from one Karamchand it was indicated that the allotment in favour of Lehri Ram had already been cancelled and the property was allotted to Karamchand, who has transferred the property to her. Based on which, the petitioner filed the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading said Karamchand as party to the suit.

The application was rejected by the trial court by its order impugned dated 21.8.2019 inter alia observing that Karamchand was not a party to the agreement and is not a legal representative of Lehri Ram and, therefore, he is not a necessary party.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the allotment has been made to Karamchand after cancelling the same in favour of Lehri Ram, said Karamchand is a necessary party and, therefore, the rejection of the application is not justified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement, which was entered into with one Lehri Ram. The impleadment is being sought on account of the fact that the allotment made in favour of Lehri Ram has been cancelled and the land has been allotted to Karamchand, who has transferred to Mohini Devi.

The said aspect cannot be made subject-matter of the suit and as such the impledment of Karamchand, even otherwise is not envisaged.

If the petitioner is aggrieved of the cancellation of allotment made in favour of Lehri Ram, he shall have to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and, therefore, the impleadment in the present suit cannot be countenanced.

In view thereof, no case for interference in the petition is made out. The same is, therefore, dismissed.