Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 253 (MP)

Bhagwati Prasad Samari v. Mathura Devi

2011-02-22

AJIT SINGH, SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 15122010 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, in Civil Suit No. 26A/2010; whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking deletion of name of respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 has been rejected. The suit at the instance of respondents is for specific performance of contract of sale and possession thereof regarding suit property i.e. shop situated at Ward No. 10, Chhatarpur. The suit admittedly, is jointly preferred by the respondents. During the pendency of the suit the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for deletion of name of respondent/plaintiff No. 2 on the anvil of principle of law as contained under section 15 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963') as also on the basis of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Panne Khushali and another v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and another; AIR 1976 M.P. 148 . The trial Court after considering the submissions W.P. No. 3162.11 put forth by the petitioners rejected the same on the ground that if not necessary the plaintiff No. 2 would be a proper party in the suit. Sections 15 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (more particularly sections 15 to 19 of the Act of 1963) enunciate the rules with reference to the persons affected by the contract, i. e. the persons for or against whom contracts, otherwise enforceable, may or may not be enforced. Similar is the principle as laid down by this Court in Panne Khushali and another v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and another (supra). Be that as it may, in case the respondent No.2/plaintiff No. 2 is unable to establish his case, he will be non suited as per his own pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioners when called for as to what prejudice would be caused if respondent No.2/plaintiff No. 2 is allowed to continue, counsel is at loss to state such prejudice. In view of above we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.