LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

RAMESH CHANDRA PATTNAIK vs PUSHPENDRA KUMARI on 1 August, 2008

Cites 1 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-004755-004755 - 2008Official PDFBench Biswanath Agrawal, Ganpat Singh SinghviAdvocates NIKHIL NAYYAR | SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Versus
Leave granted.
In a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated
10.4.1977 instituted by the petitioner against Respondent No.1 with a further prayer
for grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining Respondent Nos.1 to 9
herein from interfering with his possession, trial court allowed the application filed by
Respondent No.10 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
granted her prayer for impleadment as a defendant. The petitioner unsuccessfully
challenged the order of the Trial Court by filing writ petition before the Orissa High
Court and then preferred petition for special leave to appeal.
Notice has been served upon Respondent No.10 but she has not appeared
either in-person or through an advocate to contest the prayer made in the appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent Nos.1, 2,
4, 5, 8, and 9.
....2/-
It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed suit in the year 1979 for specific
performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated 10.4.1977. In that suit, the only
scope of enquiry would be as to whether the said agreement was, in fact, executed
between the petitioner and Respondent No.1. Respondent No.10 is alleged to have
entered into an agreement with Respondent No.1 on 15.11.1984 for sale of the

property, which is the subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner. In respect of

such an agreement, Respondent No.10, could have filed a suit for specific

performance but, as stated by learned counsel appearing for the parties, no such suit

has been filed. In our opinion respondent No.10 was not at all a necessary party for

determination of the genuinness or otherwise of the agreement of sale which is said to

have been entered into between the petitioner and Respondent No.1.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the

application filed by Respondent No.10 for impleadment is dismissed.

As the suit was filed in the year 1977, the Trial Court shall make all

possible efforts for its disposal as early as possible.

August 01, 2008.

Versus

In the third last line of the order dated 1st August, 2008, the year “1977” be

read as “1979”.

Ordered accordingly.

September 01, 2008.