Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners -plaintiffs have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 (Annex.7) passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (fort short 'the learned court below'). By the impugned order, the learned court below has allowed the application of the third respondent -applicant under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a civil suit before the learned court below for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction by arraying the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as defendants. In the suit, it was inter alia averred that first respondent has agreed to sell urban land measuring 4928 sq.ft. to them by executing agreement to sale dated 21.08.1992. In terms of agreement to sale, the total consideration amount was settled between the parties to the tune of Rs. 51,000/ - and out of which Rs. 41,000/ - was paid to second respondent as power of attorney of first respondent. The petitioners have made a positive assertion that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the respondents have failed to adhere to their commitment and that necessitated filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the first respondent. In the written statement, the first respondent has completely repudiated the agreement to sale allegedly executed by him in favour of the petitioners. The fact of receiving part payment of the consideration amount is also denied by the first respondent. In the written statement, the first respondent has also denied the fact that he has appointed second respondent as his power of attorney. In totality, the first respondent has herald many insinuations against the petitioners by submitting that entire transaction is a dubious transaction which is designed by the petitioners to grab his property.
(3.) DURING pendency of the suit, the third respondent -applicant laid an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party defendant. In his application, the third respondent has averred that the land in question which is subject matter of the suit is owned by him and, therefore, he is not only proper party but a necessary party to the litigation. With a view to substantiate his assertion, the third respondent has also averred in the application that for the same property he has launched a Civil Suit bearing No. 229/1998 for permanent injunction wherein interim injunction has been granted in his favour to protect his possession. The third respondent has also made a specific averment in the application that plaintiffs and the defendants are in collusion at their sole objective is to deprive him from his property in the guise of the suit. Therefore, in that background, the third respondent has claimed for being impleaded as party defendant so that he can render proper assistance to the Court and apprise the Court about the entire facts situation.;