Ramesh Chandra
Pattnaik Vs. Pushpendra Kumari & ANR [2008] INSC 1282 (1 August 2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4755 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14602
of 2006) Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik ...Appellant(s) Versus Pushpendra Kumari &
Others ...Respondent(s) O R D E R 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/- -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.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New
Delhi, August 01, 2008.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4755 OF 2008 (Arising out
of S.L.P. (C) No.14602 of 2006) Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik ...Appellant(s) Versus
Pushpendra Kumari & Others ...Respondent(s) O R D E R In the third last
line of the order dated 1st August, 2008, the year "1977" be read as
"1979".
Ordered accordingly.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New
Delhi, September 01, 2008.
Back
