^N?- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fArt.227) N0. l-^M-OF 2010 PETITIONER (Plaintiff) Jaspat Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Late Sardar Singh, Director M/s Amanraj Enterpnses Private Limited, Punjab Tyres, K.K. Road, Raipur. Vs RESPONDENTS befendants ;<;^....i ^ ^tl^^,. ^ ^l^ '"^e. t^A^ ¥%fe^)f^ ^ ,'<7^;¥"* v&^w /^r^/ .^•' %~ ^ €-. ^ <<3^'' ^ \^\ 1. bilip Kumar 6upta, aged about 60 years, son of Late A.K. Gupta, resident of Near FofQdih Chowk, Vijay Soap Street, Raipur. 2. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, son of Late A.K. Gupta, resident of Krishna Kunj, Behind Tagore School, Shivanand Nagar, Sector-2, Raipur Street, Raipur (CG) 3. Abdut Gaffar, aged about 49 years, son of Late Abdul Wahab Khan, resident of Govind Nagar, Raja Talab, RaipUr (CG) (not made party before the trial court, however. since Jmpleadment has been souqht in suit. therefore. made party to this petition.) PETITION UNbER ARTICLE227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INblA /" ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 1574/2010 PETITIONBR JaspalSingh Versus RESPONDENTS DiUp Kumar Gupta and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitipner; Shri Shri P.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. forthe'respohdehfNoTl: Shri Raja Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No. 2. O RAL O RD ER 1. 2. 1. 11. (29-4-2011) With consent of the parties, heard finally. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question legality and propriety of the order dated 25-2-2010 whereby plaintiffs application under Order 1 RulelOofC.P.C. hasbe^n.dismissed. Facts of the case in brief are as under: According to plaintiff, he entered into agreement of sale with regard to suit property with defendants for a sale consideration of Rs. 38,00,000/—andp:aidRs, 2,11,000/- as earnest money. Defendant No. 2 by filing written statement denied execution of agreement in plaintiffs favour and had pleaded defendants have executed agreenient of sale in favour of one Abdul Gaffar on 27-5- 2008 and also handed over possession of some part of the property. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. for impleading said Abdul Gaffar as a party defendant in the case inter alia on the ground as per defendant No. 2, defendants have entered into agreement ^ ^ of sale with the sale Abdul Gaffar on 27-5-2008, a date prior to execution of agreement of sale in plaintiffs favour and therefore, he is a necessary party for just decision of the case. { iii. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application holding in the suit for speciflc performance of contract, said Abdul Gaffar is neither necessary nor proper party. 4. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit as per the written statement of defendant No. 2, defendants entered into agreement of sale with said Abdul Gaffar and have also handed over possession of some part of the suit property to him. Therefore, he is an inferested person in the suit property and his impleadment in the suit is necessary. He would further submit plaintiff being dominus litus in his absolute discretion can make any person a party to the suit against whora he wishes to proceed and order of court below is without jurisdiction. 5. Shri P.K. Tulsiyan and Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Ram Sahu -v- Jagdish Prasad Nirmalkar' and ;othersis^lR-)20110 N€)0il7Qe(CHH) would submit in a suit for specific performance ofcontract for sale, lis between vender and vendee shall only be gone into and third party to the agreement for sale assuming is in possession of the contracted property is neither proper nor necessa'ry'party'eind'there'fbre, leeirned trial Cottrt has not committed any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in dismissing petitioner's application. r'T.^-x-H.i i.irniuiKur. ^iid oi.i^ers (AiK 2U!-0 NtH...^ i72 (Cht-u 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. /ttr''nc:l(.'- --.sarv Dariv a.nd ti'ierefore- learned tnal Court j^us .,^-c^. /!k^l ^ y ~^.^iS -fc^ ^v 8. Indisputably the plaintiff has not claimed any relief in the suit against said Abdul Gaffar. The suit filed is a suit claiming relief of specific performance of contract against the defendants in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 22-5-2009. As per Section 19 of the Specific Reliefs Act, specific performance of a contract inay be enforced against (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; (c) any person claiming under a title which, though prior to ^rh- -\\.:-: ^^-!T -r •:. the contract and known to the plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant; (d) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated with anofher company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation; (e) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract for the purpose of the company and such contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation, the company: Provided that the company has accepted the contract and communicated such acceptance to the other party to the contract. A three Judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kasturi -v- Kasturi v. lyyamperumal and others ((2005) 6 SCC 733) has held, in a suit 'for specific performance of contract for sale of property to a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as a defendant. The above judgment was explained by two judges bench of HonlDle Supreme Court in case of Sumti Bai -v- Paras Finance Company and others ^(2007(10)'SCC'8Q,! ^wh.erem^ it has been held if a party can show fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment. In the above case, purchase was by one Kapur Chand and his sons. An application filed by late Kapur Chand praying that his sons be impleaded in the 'y ^^-., . ?ii ' Y^S^i^~. ^. ^ "—-^ ^' v\ "•. ^ ^ v;^, 'g^-""\,fr ^',< ") suit as party was rejected, consequently after his death his legal representatives were not permitted to file an additional written statement in the suit. In that context, the HonT^le Supreme Court has held if a party can show fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment. Here in the instant case, as per pleading of defendant No. 2, defendants have entered into agreement of sale with one Abdul Gaffar. Plaintiff is a third party so far as that contract is concerned. It is also well settled that by entering into contract for sale of property, party does not get any legal right over the property. Further the plaintiff can pursue his remedy only .1, ... . . ....... , . ... against the defendants and not against^any person who is stranger to the contract. It is not a case that the said Abdul Gaffar is co-owner of the suit property. In view of above, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed plaintiffs application. <;- V. •.. . . . .... . i i... .• ':. .J L; ..... . :.J -. ; ,. .J . . i . ..^., ;^ 11 .. . /.. .. . The petition being devbid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. tKi'i.'iu.icuitS u^i u^aui; Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge