Ved Parkash vs Amar Singh and Another

Some facts giving rise to this petition deserve to be noticed.

Khiyali Ram entered into an agreement to sell some land to the petitioner vide agreement dated June 29, 1989. Khiyali Ram thereafter entered into another agreement to sell the same land with Amar Singh. On the failure of Khiyali Ram to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, petitioner filed a suit for specific performance. When this suit was at the evidence stage, Amar Singh filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a defendant, on the allegation that there is an agreement dated January 8, 1990 in his favour. The said Amar Singh has also filed a suit for specific performance which is pending. Grant of the application of Amar Singh has given rise to this petition.

Learned counsel for the parties proposed that this petition be disposed of at the motion stage, they were therefore, heard at some length.

Learned counsel for the petitioner making grouse against the order passed, submitted that an applicant can be ordered to be joined as a party to the suit if he is either a necessary or a proper party. According to the learned counsel the presence of Amar Singh is not necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle anything involved in the suit, he being not a party to the agreement. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on Krishan Lal v. Tek Chand (1986) 90 P.L.R. 616 (D.B.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Rajinder Singh v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. 1987 P.L.J. 68.

In my view this petition deserves to succeed. Rajinder Singh''s case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case as neither the applicant is in possession of the land nor is he a party to the agreement. He has already filed a suit for specific performance, of the agreement in his favour, which is pending. The order, that may be passed in this suit, would not be binding on him. His rights are also not likely to be affected by any decision rendered in this case. In Krishan Lal''s case (supra) it was clearly held that an applicant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for specific performance as he was not a party to the agreement, to sell and no relief was sought against him. It is thus held that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to be added as a defendant in this case.

There is, however, a chance of two contradictory decrees coming into being because of the two suits filed by the two alleged purchasers on the strength of independent agreement, to sell in their favour in respect of the same land. To avoid such a situation it is ordered that the two suits be consolidated and disposed of together. The parties shall furnish the particulars of their suit to the trial Court so that the two suits are consolidated and decided together.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is disposed of in the above terms.