Full Text
Date ofJudgment: 09.09.2011 CM (M) No.778/2010 & CM No.10665/2010
PREM KHURANA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja, Advocate.
Through: None. f CORAM:
( HON BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR. T. (Oral) For order see CM(M) No.765/2010.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 2011:DHC:9218 FILE'S.tL y ^ " 57 -Sir:l^.L * • IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date'ofJudgment: 09.09:2011 • + •• CM(M) No. 765/2010 & CM No.lQ598/2Q10 SANJAY DHINGRA PetiCioner Through: Mr.Suclhir Nandrajog, Sr. Budhiraja, Advocate. Versus- BALJEET SINGEI St OTHERS Respondents AND CM (M) No.768/2010 & CM No.10605/2010 • PREM KHURANA:.Petitioner. Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. • Advocate with Mr. Paritosh.. Budhiraja/Advocate.
VERSUS
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS - Respondents Through:' None. AND ' • •. CM (M) No.778/2010 & CM No.l0665/2Q10 VED PRAKASH GUPTA Petrtioner" Through: • Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Budhiraj a. Advocate.
VERSUS
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS, Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE INDERMEET I<CAUR CM(lvi) Nos; 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 - Pa"e 1 ofS:FILE'S t ii:: yp;?#; I' j;.;.' ^•., *.r i'l "^ • -••::':'!-v.-^Hr'::.-:.'
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 1:1 2, To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAVR, L (Oral)
1 Order impugned is the order dated 12.01.2010-vide which the apphcation of the apphcant seeking impleadment under Order.
2 Gurbaksh Singh was admittedly the owner of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. 7, Block 10, Ramesh Nagar, ' Delhi. He had died intestate on 27.12.1990 leaving behind his six legal heirs; relinquishment deeds have been executed by the four legal representatives in favour of Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh; by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 26.02.2008, tlie said Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh had sold the aforenote'd suit property to the apphcant 'and he is in actual physical possession of the said property. He had accordingly sought impleadment in the present suit^proceedings.
3 Necessai-7 would it be to state that the present suit is a. suit for specific performance which has been, filed by Baljeet Singh CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 PiiiicZofS against'the two defenciants;-the'case, of the plaintiff is that the • - • '. ' '. defendants Amrit Pal•Singh R^ndhawa and Smt. Satnam Kaur were the legal.representatives of Ranjit Singh Randhawa who was the owner of the said property; Ranjit Singh Randhawa had i become owner by virtue of a VViill dated,21.12.1989 executed by Gurbaksh Singh'in favour of Ranjit Singh Randhawa; as absolute •. !.. • •. owner of the aforenoted property, Ranjit Singh Randhawa in his hfetime had entered into ah agreement to sell with Baljit Singh dated 15.02.2007 for a consideration of Rs.l[3] lacs; Rs.l lac was paid by-way of Bayana-cum-receipt dated 15.02.2007; since the defendants had not honoured j their commitment, the 'suit for specific performance had accordingly been filed by Baljeet-Singh.
4 As noted supra, the petitioner is seeking impleadment in view of the averments made by him in his application under Order
5. •Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed rehance upon a judgment of.the Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 3166 Sumtibai & others Vs. Paras Finance Company to support -his submission that in certain; circumstances" even' a third-' party/stranger can be impleaded if he shows some fair-semblance. of title or interest in the suit-property; in such a situation, the CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010.Page3or[5] VP ";Mi DF FILE'S..±r V, IS if#: i--:. • ! fcv application for impieadment may be allowed. This was a case [j? where the son and legal representatives of the deceased had IH,; •:|;| sought impieadment; it was in this context, that those i.: obsen/ations were made. 'f;. i:" 6 That apart,, the apphcation for impieadment in a suit for j' specific performance has to show some fair semblance of title or i ' interest in the suit property; the claim of the apphcant is founded upon an agreement to sell dated 26.02.2008 entered into between • himself and • Surinder Singh and Surjeet • Singh, legal representatives of Gurbaksh Singh. The contention of the / petitioner is that he is in physical possession of the suit property. Prayers made in the plaint by the plaintiff are confined upon the agreement dated 15.02.2007 by virtue of which, the plaintiff had paid an earnest money amount of Rs.l lac in part consideration of the purchase of the suit'property; further contention being that the defendants should be restrained from dispossessing'.the \ » plaintiff from the aforenoted property.
7 While dealing with an application under' Order 1 Rule 1,0 of the Code, the test is whether the decree can be effectively passed without impleading the.said party, and secondly whether the impleading party is necessary to resolve the controversy or dispute in question. This twin test has been reiterated by the • CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 Paae 4 ofS k> r.,..we.ex.of the Disdaimer., - • f• AIR 1953 sc 521 iaEutt-eaa^^ss^^ Supreme Court m •. ', fnrpstated test, it is • x" others Applyi^S • TTT-icihna NarmnM-Qi^-^' EmsMMmJl—, advance his de.e™iB.tion o»he.>a plaintiff if concerned court; needless wou j, ^^ent in fact would only add to confusion an ^ tapugned order has rightly held so; interference.