Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 745 (PNJ)

Gordhan v. Pawan

2005-07-14

S.S.SARON

body2005
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J. - In pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure P-3), the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), has allowed the application dated 16.2.2005 (Annexure P-21) of the minors Deepak and Reetu, son and daughter respectively of Pawan (defendant No. 1) to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The said order is assailed in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff- petitioner. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner is that he entered into an agreement dated 22.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) with Pawan, (defendant No. 1) whereby he agreed to sell his 1/6th share in land measuring 38 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Farmana Khas Meham, District Rohtak. The petitioner paid Rs. 4,80,000/- as earnest money to Pawan (defendant No. 1), in pursuance of the said agreement. The remaining amount was to be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner at the time of registration of the sale-deed for which the date 15.6.2003 was fixed. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that despite repeated requests Pawan (defendant No. 1) did not get the sale- deed executed which resulted in filing a suit on 11.7.2003 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 22.1.2003. During the pendency of the suit, the minors Deepak and Reetu, son and daughter respectively of Pawan (defendant No. 1) through their mother and guardian Om Pati filed an application (Annexure P-2) for being impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure P-3) which is assailed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court committed a material irregularity in allowing the application as the joining of the minor children of Pawan (defendant No. 1) was/is not necessary for the determination of the matter in issue between the parties. Besides, their being arrayed as parties is not necessary for the adjudication of the case. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is appropriate to note that Pawan (defendant No. 1) was proceeded against ex parte in the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The application (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the minor children of Pawan through their mother and guardian Smt. Om Pati. It is appropriate to note that Pawan (defendant No. 1) was proceeded against ex parte in the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The application (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the minor children of Pawan through their mother and guardian Smt. Om Pati. It is alleged that Pawan (defendant No. 1) has got himself proceeded against as ex parte in collusion with the plaintiff-petitioner. In fact, he had been restrained by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.2002 in suit titled Deepak v. Pawan from alienating the suit land or creating any charge over the same. Therefore, it is the case of the minors that the parties to the suit intend to illegally get the suit decreed by concealing the true facts from the Court. Therefore, they are necessary and proper parties for the decision of the case. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the case law cited on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has found that the decree dated 5.6.2002 in favour of the minors was in existence before the execution of the agreement dated 22.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) between the plaintiff-petitioner and Pawan (defendant No. 1). Besides, a photo copy of newspaper was shown to the learned trial Court which is dated 9.8.2000 in which Pawan (defendant No. 1) had disinherited his son. In these circumstances, it was observed that the agreement to sell executed by Pawan (defendant No. 1) was with the knowledge of the previous decree against him and also the injunction qua his share restraining him from alienating or encumbering the land to the extent of his share. In the circumstances, it was observed that the agreement to sell between the parties to the suit cannot be enforced unless applicants i.e. Deepak and Reetu are impleaded as parties in the case as defendants. 6. The facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, evidently show that Deepak and Reetu, minors who have been impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Pawan (defendant No. 1) is not pursuing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and he has been proceeded against ex parte. 2 and 3 respectively in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Pawan (defendant No. 1) is not pursuing the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and he has been proceeded against ex parte. Besides, the judgment of the Civil Court which restrained Pawan (defendant No. 1) from alienating his share or encumbering it was passed on 5.6.2002 i.e., before the agreement that is said to have been entered into by him with the plaintiff-petitioner on 22.1.2003. Therefore, in the circumstances, the minors Deepak and Reetu are necessary and proper parties so as to settle the dispute. The purpose of provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is that the parties to a dispute relating to one subject-matter are brought before the Court so that their dispute may be determined and settled without delay and without indulging in multiple litigation. By addition of the minors as parties to the suit and getting the claim settled would in the circumstances avoid multiplicity of litigation. Besides, the impugned order is not one which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.