1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1512 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Balasubramanian : Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Kavitha : 1st Respondent/Defendant 2.The Managing Director, Arulmigu Veeramakaliamman Koil Aranthangi,Pudikkottai District. : 2nd Respondent/Proposed 2nd defendant Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 10.02.2010 and made in I.A.No.176 of 2007 in O.S.No.125 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Balasundaram For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Selvaraj J U D G M E N T This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order, dated 10.02.2010 and made in I.A.No.176 of 2007 in O.S.No.125 of 2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai. 2.The plaintiff is the revision petitioner herein. The 1st respondent herein is the defendant and the 2nd respondent is the proposed 2nd defendant. 3.The petition in I.A.No.176 of 2007 seems to have been filed by the 1st respondent/defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, to implead the proposed 2nd defendant viz., the Managing Director of Arulmigu Veeramakaliamman Koil, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District. 4.The revision petitioner/plaintiff has contested the petition by filing his counter. 5.After hearing both sides, the trial court has ultimately allowed the petition permitting the 1st respondent/defendant to implead the proposed defendant as afore-stated. 6.Impugning the fair and decretal order, dated 10.02.2010, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7.When the revision petition came up for hearing, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that the suit in O.S.No.125 of 2003 has been filed by the revision petitioner herein seeking the relief of specific performance against the first respondent/defendant. 8.He has also added that the revision petitioner and the first respondent have entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property and that the sale agreement was also duly registered. When the suit was pending for trial, the defendant has come forward with the petition in I.A.No.176 of 2007 saying that the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent temple is the original owner of the suit property and unless and until, the 2nd respondent is impleaded as one of the parties to the suit, there may not be any fair justice. 9.Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff has also submitted that nevertheless the revision petitioner had contested the petition for impleadment on the ground that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added as a party, the contention put forth by the revision petitioner was totally ignored by the trial court and thereafter, the trial court had proceeded to pass a non-speaking order, which has been given entitlement to the defendant to implead the proposed 2nd defendant in the suit. The non- speaking order of the trial court has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. 10.In support of this contention, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff has placed reliance upon the decision in Bharat Karasondas Thakkar vs. Kiran Construction Co. and Others, [(2008)5 MLJ 424 (SC)]. In this case, while speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, His Lordship Hon'ble Mr.Justice Altamas Kabir has held that:- “A third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added as a party to a suit for specific performance. The scope of a suit for specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a suit for title and possession. A third party or a stranger to the contract could not be added so as to convert a suit of one character into suit for a different character.” 11.On the other hand, Mr.K.Balasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, while advancing his argument, has submitted that as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein, may be a stranger to the contract of sale. However, since, he being the original owner of the suit property, his impleadment as a defendant in the suit, would throw more light on the real issue, which made the parties to take position on the opposite sides, which would eventually help the court to take appropriate decision, at the time of pronouncing judgment. 12.He has also submitted that the order of the trial court could not be termed as non-speaking order. Since the 2nd respondent, who is the proposed defendant in the suit is a proper and necessary party, the trial court has carefully considered the averments of the petition filed by the first respondent and accordingly, the petition was allowed, which could not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 be disturbed by this court under the guise of revision. 13.In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision in Sumtibai & others vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, W/o.Parasmal Chordia (D) & others, [2007-4-L.W.865]. In this case, in para 9, His Lordship Honourable Mr.Justice Markandey Katju, while penning down the judgment on behalf of a Division Bench, has held as follows:- “9.Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and other-(2005)6 SCC 733 = 2005-4-L.W.25. He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. In the present case, the registered sale deed, dated 12.08.1960 by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only Kapoor Chand, but also his sons. Thus prima facie, it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.” 14.He has also placed reliance upon an another decision in V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi vs. V.Balakrishnan and 10 others, [2009(1) CTC 411]. In this case, the learned single Judge of this court has held that:- “It is the well settled principles of law that the Court has wide co-extensive power to implead any person at any stage of the Suit as necessary party so as to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon the questions involved in the Suit. For exercise of such power, the Court has to come to a finding that a party is a necessary party. Party could not to be added as defendants merely because they will be affected by orders of the court incidentally. The proper question to be addressed by the court whether the right of the persons may be affected if they are arrayed as parties. The only reason which makes him a necessary party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is a party to the suit.” 15.In the instant case on hand, it is manifested from the records that the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the first respondent/defendant have entered into a contract of sale in respect of the suit property on 4.10.2001 and the sale price has also been fixed at Rs.3,75,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 16.It is obvious to note here that the sale agreement, dated 4.10.2001 was duly registered. In the petition in I.A.No.176 of 2007, the first respondent/defendant has contended that the proposed 2nd defendant temple is the original owner of the suit property and since, he is a proper and necessary party to the suit, he should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit, otherwise, she would be put into irreparable loss and hardship. 17.On a careful perusal of the relevant materials available on record, this court is of view that as decided by the Apex court in Sumtibai & Others vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar, W/o.Paramal Chordia (D) & others, [2007-4-L.W.865] as well as by this court in V.Ravi @ P.V.Ravi vs. V.Balakrishnan and 10 others, [2009(1)CTC 411], it appears that the 2nd respondent, who is the proposed 2nd defendant in the suit, is having semblance of right. Prima facie, it is made out that the 2nd respondent herein, who is the proposed defendant in the suit, is having right over the suit property, and therefore, for effective adjudication of the question involved in the suit, the 2nd respondent is a necessary party. Keeping in view of this fact, this court does not want to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. 18.With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 19.It is thus made clear that the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, is directed to dispose the suit O.S.No.125 of 2003 within the stipulated period of two months on day to-day basis without loss of further time. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai is also directed to report the Registry about the compliance of this direction. 20.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR er To, The Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, Copy TO: The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (To Receive compliance Report) 1CC TO MR. K. BALASUNDARAM, ADVOCATE,SR: 41375: DM::2012::JANUARY:09:: CRP(PD)(MD)No.1512 of 2011 22.11.2011 4p:4c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/