The question to be considered is whether the applicant, nevertheless, should be allowed to be impleaded by virtue of a Sale Deed, executed by an allottee of the Gaon Sabha, who has been allotted pursuant to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Financial Commissioner. In case the efforts made by the 1st respondent to implead the petitioners herein as parties to the present suit are thwarted, they shall have to institute another suit against the petitioners in the event of the present suit being decreed. Multifariousness: Misjoinder of parties and causes of action in a suit is technically called multifariousness. In the order of the trial court, reference has been made to an application filed by the first defendant to the effect that he was not earlier aware of the case and the 4th defendant had forged his signature and filed a bogus vakalatnama. No order as to costs.
R's - Death of sole defendant during pendency of suit - Notice of application U. Mere negect, or suffering execution by other creditors, is not a sufficient reason for an order under Order 38 of the Code. In State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board and who files application for being joined as party within time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. The fact of the case was that the appellant filed a suit for maintenance and for creation of charge over the ancestral property. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. A suit should not be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder.
If a necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. Equally, Order 1, Rule 3 is not applicable to the suit for specific performance because admittedly, the respondent was not a party to the contract. In Sisir Kumar Tarafdar v. Gunaranjan, that the learned Addl. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such circumstances, impleading the persons would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of other contesting parties. If a person is not a necessary party to the litigation or his presence is not necessary to adjudication the case effectually and completely, he shall not be added as defendant without the consent of the plaintiff.
Grounds for Addition of Parties: Under Order I, Rule 10 2 the court is empowered to add a party on either of the two grounds, viz. In the light of the settled principles of law on the doctrine of lis pendens, we have to examine the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Transfer of any right, title or interest in the suit property or the consequential acquisition of any right, title or interest, during the pendency of the suit will be subject to the decision in the suit. Bank of England 1950 2 All E. By operation of the above-quoted rule though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party, but the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
Subrahmanyam, counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. C which deals with Orders and Rules. Under rule 9, the plaintiff or the person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff can apply for setting aside the abatement and if it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit, the court can set aside the abatement or dismissal of the suit on such terms as to costs. Thereafter one of the defendants died. Intervention in Appeal: Supreme Court refused to interfere in appeal against the order rejecting impalement as party by developer in a suit by builder for specific performance of agreement to develop land against land owner. R's and if they do not appear, Court to accept the application U.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleadment of subsequent purchaser - Suit for specific performance - Sale deed in favour of subsequent purchaser executed during pendency of suit - Same is hit by provisions of lis pendens - Suit filed is for relief of specific performance, if decree is passed against defendant that decree is. Further, reliance is placed on Rramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. The two provisions deal with different eventualities and contingencies. A necessary party is a person who ought to have joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Plaint schedule properties are agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. Therefore, he is not a necessary party.
In accordance with Order 19, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has, for sufficient reasons, to pass an order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 4-- Impleading of L. A legal representative has the same status and rights as that of the deceased, whereas the rights and obligations of a person impleaded under Order I, Rule 10, C. C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex. In 1977 a suit was filed by the Bank in Delhi High Court for recovery and redemption of the mortgaged property.
The matter came before this Court allowing the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the courts below. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. The only exception provided to this rule is furnished by the general principle that a court will refrain from passing a decree which would be ineffective and infructuous. In a suit for injunction restraining interference with possession, the applicant sought its impleadment in the suit as defendant, principally, on the ground that it had entered into agreement of sale with the defendant opposite party through her attorney in respect of a part of the land in suit. This Court again in the case of Dwarka Prasad Singh and others vs. Nay, it would be the duty of the court to permit such person to come on record; and that would not merely avoid multiplicity of proceedings but would effectively safeguard the interest of all concerned.
Considering the aforesaid provisions, this Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. As seen from this provision, it is applaicable to hearing suits. Where the removal is to a foreign country, the inference is greatly strengthened. The Court below dismissed the said petition. I have no hesitation in concurring with the view that no one other than parties to an agreement to sell is a necessary and proper party to a suit. No such application was filed within stipulated time. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objectives.