IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 16, 2008 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurcharan Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Gurcharan Singh-plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.10.2003 against Gopal Dass-defendant/respondent No. 2 pleading therein that the latter agreed to sell the suit land to the former. During its pendency, the petitioner filed an application Under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party on the ground alleging therein that the plaintiff and the defendant were conniving with each other and trying to grab the property and also the earnest money given by him to Gopal Dass at the time of execution of an agreement to sell dated 10.12.2002 under which said Gopal Dass agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha to him and received a sum of Rs. 95,000/- from him as earnest money. The sale deed in respect of Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -2- agreement to sell dated 10.12.2002 was to be executed on 15.5.2003 but the defendant showed inability and got the date extended, first to 14.8.2003 and then to 5.11.2003, but still he failed to execute the sale deed. It was also pleaded therein that the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 10.12.2002. However, the defendant developed some malafide intention and in connivance with the plaintiff forged and fabricated an agreement dated 15.10.2003 in favour of the plaintiff with a view to usurp his earnest money and to defeat his legal rights. The application was opposed by Gurcharan Singh- plaintiff/respondent No. 1 by asserting that the defendant and the petitioner were conniving with each other resulting in filing of civil suit by the petitioner on 8.6.2006, much after the filing of the suit by him on 13.1.2004 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.10.2003. The application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was, however, dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order 16.4.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Gopal Dass-defendant/respondent No. 2 had executed agreement to sell dated 10.12.2002, so as to sell the suit land to him at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha and he also received an amount of Rs. 95,000/- from the Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -3- petitioner as earnest money. Later on, Gopal Dass became dishonest and forged and fabricated an agreement dated 15.10.2003 in favour of Gurcharan Singh-plaintiff-respondent No. 1 so as to grab the earnest money paid by him. Therefore, the petitioner be impleaded as a party to the suit filed by Gurcharan Singh against Gopal Dass so that he may protect his interest in the suit property. He has relied on Jaswinder Singh and others v. Ran Singh and others 2007(2) PLR 581, wherein one Upkar Singh, who was also claiming to have agreed to purchase land from the defendant therein, was allowed to be impleaded as a party on the ground that it would result in proper adjudication of the dispute, besides giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to bring the evidence against the claim of Upkar Singh also. Further that, if Upkar Singh filed a separate suit claiming his right over the suit land therein, the plaintiff have to bring evidence to contradict his claim. It was, accordingly, prayed that the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. should be accepted and he be impleaded as a party to the suit filed by Gurcharan Singh-respondent No.1 against Gopal Dass- respondent No. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already filed a separate suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 10.12.2002. Though, the said agreement was earlier in point of time to the agreement dated 15.10.2003 between Gurcharan Singh-plaintiff and Gopal Dass-defendant, yet the petitioner has filed Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -4- the suit later on. Suit was filed by Gurcharan Dass on 13.1.2004 against Gopal Dass, while Sukhdev Singh filed it on 8.6.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the agreement. He is a third party. Therefore, he would not fall within the category of 'parties to the agreement'. The petitioner also does not fall within the ambit of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, which provides relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733, it was held that the scope of suit for specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a suit for title and possession Further that a third party or a stranger to a contract could not be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of a different character. In Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Co. 2008(5) Law Herald (SC) 3067, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an identical situation which according to it very often raised its head in suits for specific performance, i.e. whether a stranger to an agreement for sale could be added as a party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sell in view of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :- “...........Along with that is the other question, which very often raises its head in suits for specific performance, that is, whether a stranger to an agreement for sale can be added as a party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -5- sale in view of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 The relevant provision of Section 15 with which we are concerned is contained in clause (a) thereof and entitles any party to the contract to seek specific performance of such contract. Admittedly, the appellant herein is a third party to the agreement and does not, therefore, fall within the category of “parties to the agreement”. The appellant also does not come within the ambit of Section 19 of the said Act, which provides for relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail in Kasturi's case (supra). While holding that the scope of a suit for specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a suit for title and possession, their Lordships observed that a third party or a stranger to the contract could not be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of a different character.” In Dr. Laxminarayan Mohapatra v. Sohini Bahar Sur and others 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 290, similar observations were made by Orissa High Court, which read as follows :- “In the present case, so far as addition of Puri Municipality as well as the Executive Officer of Puri Municipality as defendants 3 and 4 is concerned, at the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the same prayer made under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C has been turned down by both the Courts Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -6- below as well as this Court in O.J.C. No. 17693 of 1997 Be that as it may, it is to be examined as to whether Puri Municipality is a necessary party in the present suit. The contention that Puri Municipality being the paramount owner of the suit land, is a necessary party,cannot be sustained in view of the nature of the suit which is one for specific performance of a contract. Admittedly, Puri Municipality is not a party to the contract nor is it bound by the same. Even though Puri Municipality is the paramount owner of the property, in a suit for specific performance of contract, the Municipality cannot be said to be a necessary party. A similar question arose in the case of Krushna Chandra Patnaik v. Bishwanath Agarwalla, 69 (1990) C.LT. 529. The said case was also one for specific performance of contract in respect of Khasmahal lands of which, admittedly, the State Government was the paramount owner and prior permission of the Collector was necessary for alienation of the said property. This Court in paragraph 10 of the said judgment held as follows :- “........In a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the property in question, State cannot be held to be a necessary party merely because the land in question is a Khasmahal land. In directing specific performance, State has no role to Civil Revision No. 4960 of 2008 -7- play, nor the decree would become unenforceable in the absence of State as a party to the litigation.......” In Jaswinder Singh's case (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, one Upkar Singh, who was not a party to the agreement, was impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance for the reason that he was already found to be in possession of the suit land, which was delivered to him under an independent agreement. It was, therefore, held that he was a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit as its result would certainly affect his rights and any adjudication in his absence would not arrive at a logical end, which would gave rise to further litigation, making the matters more complicated. Same is not the position in the present case, where admittedly the petitioner is not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the aforementioned judgment. There is no merit in the revision, which is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 16, 2008 JUDGE satish