BELA M.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 10.12.14 (Annex.4) passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 25/13, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under 1, Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the JDA as party-defendant has been rejected.
(2.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Sanjiv Pandey for the petitioner that though the suit has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking specific performance of the agreement in question, the application for impleading JDA was filed as the respondents were going to put up illegal and unauthorised construction on the plots in question. According to him, the JDA would be proper party if not necessary party, to completely adjudicate the disputes between the parties. In this regard the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 417.
(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement in question against the respondents-defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed the application under 1, Rule 10 of CPC seeking impleadment of JDA as party-defendant in the suit. It is settled proposition of law that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement, the parties to the agreement alone would be necessary parties and the stranger to the agreement could not be said to be either the proper or necessary party. The trial court having rightly held that the JDA could not be said to be a necessary or property party, more particularly when no relief is claimed against the JDA in the suit, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or wrong. It is needless to say that the petitioner can take other recourse to the proceedings as may be legally permissible against the respondents or the JDA.;