- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 17th August, 2007, whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.
(2.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents-defendants. The respondents-defendants filed the written statement of defence and in Para 1 whereof, it was stated that out of total land in question, 3 bigha and 1.5 biswa land, had already been sold to the society Bhankrota Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') by their predecessor Kalu Ram on 1st May, 1995. Having come to know about the fact of the said sale to 'the Society', the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, imploring the court to allow him to implead 'the Society' as party defendant. The learned trial court dismissed the application, hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that 'the Society' is a necessary party in the suit, as a part of the suit land was sold by the defendant-vendor to 'the Society' and in the absence of 'the Society', the suit cannot be adjudicated. In case, 'the Society' is not impleaded as party defendant, will have to file a separate suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, which will give rise to the multiplicity of litigation. The learned trial court dismissed the said application arbitrarily sans assigning any cogent reason. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is arbitrary and perverse, hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He has cited the case of Kasturi V/s. Iyyamperumal & Others, 2005 AIR(SC) 2813, in support thereof.;