MOHAMMADBHAI SK MOHSINBHOY Vs. TRUSTEES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA
LAWS(CAL)-1983-8-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 04,1983

MOHAMMADBHAI SK.MOHSINBHOY Appellant
VERSUS
TRUSTEES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Monjula Bose, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein seeks to be added as a party-defendant to the proceedings by reason of the fact that during the pendency of the present suit an agreement for sale of the suit premises was entered upon between himself and the defendant No. 3, the owner of the suit property, under which agreement be claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 37,656/- to the defendant No. 3.
(2.) The present suit filed by the plaintiffs against, inter alia, the defendant No. 3 is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit-property upon payment of the balance sum of the purchase money to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who had acquired the property under the Land Acquisition Act. It is not disputed that the plain-tiffs purchased the property at an auction sale held by the defendant No. 1, who admittedly bad a statutory right of preemption to purchase the land in the event of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 deciding to sell the same. The petitioner alleges that although the present proceedings have been instituted in 1967-68, the same has not been disposed of during the last fourteen years and although the evidence in the suit has been concluded, the suit remains part-heard and adjourned. It is urged that the defendant No. 3 is not taking any interest in the proceedings in view of the agreement for sale executed in petitioners favour. It is contended that the right of the petitioner is solely dependent on the outcome of this suit (Suit No. 2046 of 1968), now pending before the Court, and if due to inaction and laches on the part of the defendant No. 3 the interest of the defendant No. 3 is not properly represented in the suit, the petitioner's interest will be greatly prejudiced and/or jeopardised.
(3.) Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, for the proposition that the question of addition of parties is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and in order to be added as a party to a suit relating to a property, the applicant should have direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.