2000 (9) TMI 1093 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Satish Kumar Added as Defendant for Complete Adjudication in Specific Performance Suit.

The court allowed the revision petition, directing the impleadment of Satish Kumar as a defendant in the suit for specific performance. It emphasized that ... - Issues: Suit for specific performance, application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPCIssue 1: Suit for Specific PerformanceThe suit for specific performance was filed by Gurbir Singh Ghuman against M/s Daulat Industries Corporation Pvt. Ltd. based on an alleged agreement dated 29.10.84 executed by the Managing Director, Shri Ramesh Kumar. During the pendency of the suit, Satish Kumar applied to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming to have purchased the attached property at a public auction for Rs. 2.15 lacs. He asserted that he was the bona fide purchaser and had possession of the property, supported by a sale certificate issued by the Collector. The court considered the implications of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC regarding the addition of parties to the suit, emphasizing that anyone with an interest in the subject matter should be impleaded for effective adjudication. The court also referred to the principle that an auction purchaser is bound by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and held that Satish Kumar should be added as a necessary party to the suit for complete adjudication.Issue 2: Application for Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPCSatish Kumar's application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was initially declined by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana. However, Satish Kumar challenged this order through a revision petition, arguing that his purchase of the property at a public auction and the subsequent possession and mutation in his name made him a necessary party to the suit. The court, after considering the arguments presented, allowed the revision, emphasizing that Satish Kumar's impleadment was essential for the effectual and complete disposal of the suit. The court noted that the liability against M/s Daulat Industries predated the agreement relied upon by Gurbir Singh, suggesting that the agreement might have been devised to evade the claims of the creditor, the State. Therefore, the court allowed the revision and directed the impleadment of Satish Kumar as a defendant in the suit.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to allow the revision and implead Satish Kumar as a necessary party in the suit for specific performance.