IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 176 of 2009(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.37705/2008 Dated 19/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ N.K.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,AGED 61,REP. BY K.S.VINODKUMAR,S/O.M.K.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,AGED 37, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, SOCIETY ROAD, MARADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.S.BABURAM, S/O.SAHADEVAN,AGED 33, BABU BHAVAN, ERUVA, KIZHAKKIMMURI, PAYIPRA, PATHOOYOOR VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK,AND NOW RESIDING AT MADUVAN, FR.GEORGE VAKAYIL ROAD, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREENIVASAN EMBRANDIRI, AGED 71, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI,DURGALAYAM, KALARIKKAL MADOM, KUMBALAM,ERNAKULAM-682506. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.176 of 2009 in W. P. C. No.37705 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 ORDER This is a petition for review of judgment passed by this Court in W.P.C.37705/08. The first respondent in this review petition filed the above Writ Petition assailing the order passed by the court below allowing I.A.6124/08 filed by the petitioner herein to implead her as an additional defendant invoking Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. The said I.A was filed by her on the allegation that the property that was agreed to be sold by the second respondent to the first respondent was sold to her by the second respondent for valuable consideration and that she purchased the property after verifying all the documents and satisfying the title of the second respondent and that the suit is a collusive R. P. No.176 of 2009 -2- one instituted by the first respondent against the second respondent and that she also be heard in the matter of adjudication of the contentions involved in the suit as her interests are affected. The first respondent in this review petition assailed the impleadment of the petitioner filing the above Writ Petition. This Court observing that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and that the petitioner in I.A.6124/08 who is the petitioner in this review petition being a transferee pendente lite is not a necessary party to the suit, but only a proper party and though there is nothing wrong in permitting her to be impleaded as an additional defendant, in view of the assertion made by counsel for the first respondent who filed the Writ Petition that he is prepared to face all the consequences that may crop up while modulating the relief to be granted for R. P. No.176 of 2009 -3- absence of the subsequent purchaser on the party array and is prepared to take the risk, set aside the impleadment allowed vide I.A.6124/08 allowing the Writ Petition at the admission stage without even ordering notice to the respondents therein who were the defendant in that suit and the present petitioner who is transferee pendente lite. 2. It is brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioner in this review petition that vide Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specific performance of contract is enabled to be enforced against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title only in the event of such transferee being not a transferee for value and who has not paid his money in good faith and with notice of the original contract and not otherwise. In the instant case, it is true that the document had not been produced R. P. No.176 of 2009 -4- initially, but the review petitioner has now produced the document executed by the defendant in the suit in favour of the petitioner which shows that the property was purchased by the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.80 lakhs and spending huge amount for purchase of stamp paper for execution of document for such a huge amount. It cannot prima facie therefore, be disputed that the petitioner is not a bona fide transferee without notice of the agreement sought to be got enforced by the first respondent against the second respondent. It was for reason of oversight of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act that this Court allowed the Writ Petition vide order sought to be reviewed. Hence, the petitioner is on strong grounds in asking for a review of the judgment passed in the Writ Petition. Consequently, the review is allowed; the R. P. No.176 of 2009 -5- judgment passed in the Writ Petition on 19/12/08 is set aside and the Writ petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-