VED PRAKASH GUPTA v. BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS

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 a 2011:DHC:9220 FILE'S il'^ f iiiSIM * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Z)ate ofJudgment: 09.09.2011. + CM(M) No. 765/2010 & CM No.lQ598/2Q10 SANJAY DHINGRA Petitioner Through: Mr.Sudhir.Nandrajog, Sr.. Budhiraja, Advocate. Versus. • BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS Respondents. AND • CM (M) NO.768/2Q10 & CM No.10605/2010 • PREM KHU.RANA ' ' Petitioner. Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate v^ith Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja. Advocate.

VERSUS

BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS..Respondents Through: None. •' AND • CM (M) NO.778/201Q & CM No.l0665/2Q10 VED PRAKASH GUPTA ^.....Petitioner". Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. ' •, Budhiraja. Advocate.

VERSUS

BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR CM(M) Nos. 765/2010, 768/2010 & 778/2010 i'ligc 1 (WS =FILE'S

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) -1 Order-impugned is the order dated 12.01.2010 vide which the apphcation of the apphcant seeking impleadment under Order

1 Rule 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed. 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; rehnquishment 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, the said Surinder Singh and Surjeet Singh had sold the aforenoted suit property to the' applicant and he is in actual physical' possession of the said property. He had accordingly ' sought impleadment in the present suit proceedings.

3 Necessary 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 Psme 2 ol'5 FILE'S.S !t>. against the two defendants; the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants Amrit.Pal Singh Randhawa and Smt. Satnam Kaur were the legal representatives of Ranjit Singh Randhawa who was the owner of the said property; Ranjit Singh Randhawa had become owner by virtue of a Will 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 an 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 their commitment, the suit for. specific performance had accordingly been filed by Baljeet Singh. -6 '4. As noted supra, the petitioner Is seeking impleadmeht in view of the averments made by him in his apphcation under Order

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance 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 PageSofS' ii Sil'- OF FILE'S.±r mi-';!^: - /.[ plsCmmar ^The text f iudflment |,;V^pplication for impleadment may be allowed. •This was a case i; where the son and legal representatives of the deceased had ', sought impleadment; it was in this context, that those;/obsen/ations were made.. 6 That apart, the application for impleadment in a suit for specific performance'has to show some fair semblance of title or 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. '5 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 deahng with an apphcation 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 l'iige4or5' ail computer 11!:n',. E'Ji I! ' m. / air 1953 SC'521 SafilifLC^^ concerned court; needless w ^.,,neved MS an.dependent— ^ would'only add to contubion an w ^calls for no „edorder.asHa.«V.eldso...esald.^^^ interference....