- (1.) THE present interlocutory application has been filed by intervenor under order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as party respondents in the appeal.
(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the interveners the present appeal has been filed by the defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in Title Suit No. 76/ 2006, whereby the decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that a title suit being Title Suit No. 92/2010 has been filed before the learned Sub-Judge-I, Dhanbad for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.6.2008 and the agreement dated 5/10.9.2008 and the said suit has been decreed in terms of the joint compromise petition dated 28.5.2011, filed by the parties to the suit and accordingly, the said joint compromise petition including annexure were directed to form part of the decree. According to Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor-applicant the parties to the said compromise are required to comply with all the terms and conditions of the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 92/10 and the present respondents-plaintiff had no lawful reason or excuse for not executing and registering the deed of sale in respect of the properties involved in the said suit in compliance of the terms of the compromise decree which is binding and effective. It is further submitted that the suit property described in schedule of the plaint in Title Suit No. 92 of 2010 is the same property which has been described in schedule attached to the plaint in Title Suit No. 76 of 06, the decree passed in Title Suit No. 76/06 is the subject matter of this appeal. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the present applicants are necessary and proper party to the present proceedings as their rights is likely to be affected, if they are not joined as party respondent in the appeal and are not heard on merits of the case. It is further submitted that the presence of the present interveners applicants are also necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. As against that the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by referring counter affidavit filed against this application, submitted that the appellants of the present appeal were not arrayed as party in Title Appeal No. 92 of 2010, despite the knowledge of fact that the present appellants were contesting the title suit No. 76/ 2006 as defendant.
(3.) IT is further submitted that the suit for specific performance of contract does not lie against any document, which is not registered and hence the specific performance of contract cannot be claimed on the basis of agreement and Beyana Patra. It is submitted that the said title suit No. 92/10 was itself in bad in law and was not maintainable and the compromise decree obtained in the same is collusive in nature and is not binding upon the appellants. It is further submitted that the compromise decree passed in said Title Suit No. 92/10 is a judgment in personal and the same is not binding upon the appellant in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that the appellants have come to know that the collusive compromise entered into between the parties of Title Apeal No. 92/10 is only with a view to frustrate the claims of these appellants before the court below. It is also submitted that the Title Suit No. 92/10 of a different cause of action of altogether and therefore, the intervenors should not be included as party in the present appeal. It is lastly submitted that the respondents in the present appeal have illegal executed the sale deed of land in question and are facing contempt of court proceedings, clearly shows that the intervenors- applicants and the respondents are all hands in glows with each other in order to disturb the peaceful possession of the appellant to defeat the appellants cause which is subjudice before the Court and therefore, the intervention application may be rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the present appeal submitted that the intervenors' application is not maintainable as the applicants are not concerned in any manner with the proceedings of the present first appeal, which has been arisen out of the Title Suit No. 76/06. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by referring the order of title appeal No. 76/06 pointed out that the attempt was made by the intervenors to intervene in Title Suit No. 76/06 but intervention petition filed under order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court below. Therefore, the intervenors have no locus whatsoever in the present appeal.;