- (1.) THE revision is directed against the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.102 of 2005 ordering to implead the proposed party as the 4th defendant (4th respondent herein) in the suit.
(2.) THE revision petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance against the owners of the property on the basis of the sale agreement dated 18.12.2003 said to have been executed by them, complaining that they have failed to perform their part of the contract, which is opposed and the suit is pending. The proposed party, who is the 4th respondent herein, has filed an application before the trial Court invoking Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C to implead him as a party to the suit, inter alia contending that he had entered into a sale agreement with the owners of the property on 10.9.2003 and therefore, he is proper and necessary party to the suit, since the plaintiff is aiming to get a Decree for specific performance on the basis of the alleged agreement, which came into existence, according to him, after his agreement, which was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as by going through the document (xerox copy) said to have been executed by the defendants, came to the conclusion, that since both the agreements relate to the same property and the proposed party also claims some interest in the subject matter of the suit, he is not only a necessary party, but also a proper party. In this view, the petition came to be allowed on 24.6.2005, which is under challenge. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit, that the proposed party has no interest in the suit property, on the basis of the alleged agreement and the alleged agreement is created with the help of the other defendants and another, since the plaintiff after paying the entire sale consideration, as well as depositing the same into the Court as per the order, obtained an order against the respondents, from alienating the property and in this view, impleading the proposed party is erroneous, which is opposed. While disposing the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., it may not be proper for the Court to give a finding whether the claim projected by the proposed party could be accepted or not and it is sufficient if he has made out a case that he is a proper or necessary party to the suit interested in the subject matter. In this case, an agreement is produced whether it is genuine or not should be decided at the time of the trial. The agreement dated 10.9.2003 is said to have come into existence prior to the agreement of the petitioner/plaintiff dated 8.12.2003. Both the agreements cover the same property, not in dispute. Therefore, if the case is decided in the presence of the proposed party, who claims as the prior agreement holder and if the plaintiff is able to prove that the agreement dated 10.9.2003 came into existence subsequent to his agreement in collusion with other defendants, then he can obtain an effective Decree binding the proposed party, which is to his advantage. There is a possibility of the proposed party even to file a suit separately, if he is not impleaded, thereby creating multiplicity of proceedings, which can be avoided by impleading him in the present suit. Since the proposed party himself had voluntarily sought to be impleaded, his case also has to be decided in this case, on his filing a written statement and the main issue would be, which agreement is the genuine and whether the agreement relied on by the proposed party though it is dated 10.9.2003 came into existence subsequent to the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 8.12.2003. If a finding is invited by the plaintiff in affirmative in his favour then the proposed party cannot have any case, thereby the litigation would come to an end, which should be encouraged, not discouraged.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and considering the further fact that the proposed party also claims some interest in the property, felt he is proper and necessary party, in which I am unable to find any irregularity to disturb the same. Hence the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.14981 of 2005 is closed.;