Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Gurmit Singh Bhatia, purchased a suit property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance filed by the original plaintiffs (respondent nos. 2 & 3) against the original owner (respondent no. 1). The sale deed was executed despite an injunction restraining the owner from alienating the property. The appellant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for impleadment as a defendant, claiming interest based on the sale deed and an alleged prior agreement to sell. The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed that order, holding that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to implead a person against whom no relief is claimed. The Court relied on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, which held that a third party or stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for specific performance unless they have a direct and legal interest in the controversy. The Court distinguished the cases of Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar, (2018) 15 SCC 614 and Shri Swastik Developers v. Saket Kumar Jain, 2014 (2) Mh. L.J 968, as those involved applications by the plaintiff to implead subsequent purchasers, not by a third party against the plaintiff's wish. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's orders were affirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Third Party - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Dominus Litis - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead a third party who is not a party to the contract and against whom no relief is claimed. The court's jurisdiction to add a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC does not arise unless the proposed party has a direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. (Paras 5.1-5.2) B) Civil Procedure - Necessary Party - Tests - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Two tests must be satisfied for a person to be a necessary party: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. In a suit for specific performance, a party claiming independent title and possession adverse to the vendor's title is not a proper party. (Paras 5.2) C) Civil Procedure - Proper Party - Scope of Suit - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - A third party or stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for specific performance merely to find out possession or avoid multiplicity of suits, as it would convert the suit of one character into a suit of a different character. (Paras 5.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to implead a person in a suit for specific performance, against their wish, and more particularly with respect to a person against whom no relief has been claimed by them?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's orders dated 3.7.2013 and 5.8.2013, which quashed the trial court's order allowing impleadment of the appellant.
Law Points
- Dominus litis
- Necessary party
- Proper party
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Specific performance
- Impleadment of third party
- Independent title
