1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.552 of 2011 and M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2011 V.Jeevanandam .. Petitioner -vs- 1.M.Padmini 2.S.Kalimuthu 3.Raji 4.Eswari .. Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order in I.A.No.817 of 2010 in O.S.No.168 of 2008 dated 29.01.2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Karaikudi. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthuvijayapandian ORDER The petitioner who is the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court impleading the third and fourth respondents as third and fourth defendants in the suit. 2.The case of the petitioner is that she entered into a sale agreement, dated 21.01.2004 with the first respondent/first defendant through her power of attorney, namely the second respondent/second defendant on 05.05.2003 The sale consideration was Rs.80,000/- and totally a sum of Rs.70,000/- was already paid. The said sale agreement is a registered sale agreement. Since the respondents 1 and 2 failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and the same is pending. Pending suit, the first respondent took out an application contending that she entered into an agreement of sale on 28.12.2005 with the third and fourth respondents/the proposed defendants. The said application was allowed and the same is challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff herein. 3.Mr.P.Muthuvijayapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has entered into a sale agreement to purchase the suit property on 21.01.2004 by virtue of a registered sale deed, whereas, the sale agreement entered into by the first respondent with the third and fourth respondents is an un-registered sale agreement. The said fact is not pleaded in the first defendant's written statement Moreover, the proposed parties are unnecessary, as they are not connected with the suit transaction and therefore, seeks setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. 4.The suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 21.01.2004. It is a registered sale agreement. However, it is contended in the affidavit filed by the first respondent before the trial Court that the suit property was agreed to be sold to the third and fourth respondents on 28.12.2005. If the agreement is entered into subsequent to the petitioner's agreement, then the trial Court is at liberty to decide which sale deed is valid and it is possible only when the third and fourth respondents are made as a party to the suit. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submitted that the sale agreement dated 28.12.2005 was not pleaded by the first respondent/first defendant in the written statement. If that is so, the petitioner can take advantage out of the said position and act accordingly during trial. 5.If the proposed parties are not pleaded it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and the third and fourth respondents may approach the proper Court for specific performance of the unregistered sale agreement. That proceedings can be avoided by impleading the proposed parties in the suit and that will be an advantage to the petitioner. 6.Relying upon Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the judgment of this Court in K.P.Rajendran and another Vs. N.R.Nadimuthu and others reported in 2011 (1) CTC 331, the trial Court rightly allowed the application that the subsequent agreement-holders are necessary parties to have a binding decree against them in the suit. In view of the reason given by this Court and also the well reasoned orders passed by the trial Court, this Court is unable to interfere with the trial Court order. 7.The trial Court also took note of the fact that the impleading application was filed by the first defendant, after a lapse of one year after filing written statement by the first defendant and allowed the application with cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the petitioner herein. The trial Court very appreciably gave good reasons for allowing the petition and for awarding cost also. This Court cannot take a different view and to differ with order passed by the learned District Munsif. 8.Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration that the suit was filed in the year 2008 and that the suit is ripe for trial, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before 31.08.2011. 9.With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi. +1cc to Mr.P.Muthuvijayapandian, Advocat SR.No.6898 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.552 of 2011 17.03.2011 ps PA/18.04.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/