SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 21.02.2015 in Title Suit No. 271/2012 whereby, application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioners claiming an interest in the property comprised in Mouza No. 51 within Dhanbad Municipality, which was the subject matter of the Development Agreement dated 03.01.2009 between Smt. Kanti Sinha and Sri Prithbi Nath Pandey as Owners and Bihari Lal Pansari with Ashok Kumar Pansari as Developer. The petitioners are the signatories of the Development Agreement dated 03.01.2009. Under the said agreement, owners' allocation as well as developer's allocation have been provided under the schedule mentioned therein. Subsequently, Title Suit No. 271/2012 was instituted by Mukesh Kumar Pandey and others against Behari Lal Pansari and Ashok Kuamr Pansari who are the developers seeking a decree for 40% share in the constructed area in Schedule 'B' in terms of the Development Agreement dated 03.01.2009 and a decree for compensation and mesne profit with damages. In the pending suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking their impleadment on the ground that for complete and effective adjudication of their rights, their impleadment in the pending title suit is necessary.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been put in possession of 10% of the total constructed area and this fact has been asserted by the defendants in the written statement and therefore, to protect their rights, they sought their impleadment in the pending tile suit. The suit property was the joint family property, though registered only in the name of Shri Prithbi Nath Pandey and this fact has been suppressed by the plaintiffs in the title suit. In reply to the legal notice issued by the defendants, the plaintiffs did not specifically controverted the allegation that the property under the Development Agreement dated 03.01.2009 is a joint family property. On these grounds, it is contended that the impleadment of the petitioners in the pending title suit would avoid conflicting judgments by two Courts besides avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings. It is contended that the plaintiffs are the proper party and on that count also they should be impleaded in Title Suit No. 271/2012. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision in Sumtibai and Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. and Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 82.;