Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3184 (MAD)

Pappa v. R. Muniappan

2013-09-04

S.TAMILVANAN

body2013
ORDER Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 27-9-2010 made in I.A. No. 251 of 2010 in O.S. No. 11 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge/FTC No. 2, Salem. 3. It is seen that the suit was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners, seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement, dated 21-3-2007, wherein the petitioners/defendants filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 251 of 2010 under Order 1, Rule 10(2), CPC, seeking an order to implead one P. Amavasai, a third party as the third defendant in the suit. In the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners/defendants have stated that they entered into an agreement for sale, dated 21-3-2007 by the aforesaid P. Amavasai, earlier to the alleged agreement relating to the suit, hence, the third party has to be impleaded as third defendant in the suit, however, the same was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by which, this Revision has been preferred. 4. It cannot be disputed that the respondent/plaintiff is the dominus litus and he has to establish the suit claim, seeking specific performance of the contract. As per the impugned order, the Court below has stated that though the petitioners/defendants have averred in the written statement that there was earlier agreement between themselves and the aforesaid Amavasai, the respondent/plaintiff had not impleaded the said person. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the decision, Soundararaj v. H. Mahitha, reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 126 , wherein it has been held that a third party is entitled to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance only if such party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. The aforesaid decision is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Being the dominus litus, the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein has to decide who are all the necessary parties to the suit. If the necessary parties are not arrayed as defendants, ultimately he may be the sufferer and the petitioners/defendants need not bother about impleading some third party in the suit. 7. 6. Being the dominus litus, the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein has to decide who are all the necessary parties to the suit. If the necessary parties are not arrayed as defendants, ultimately he may be the sufferer and the petitioners/defendants need not bother about impleading some third party in the suit. 7. It is also not in dispute that the said Amavasai has not filed any suit, seeking specific performance of the contract, based on any alleged agreement between the petitioners and himself and he has not come forward with any petition to implead him as necessary party. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has found that there could have been possibility of fabricating any document by the petitioners, since the alleged sale agreement is an unregistered document, which is not warranted. Further, the said Amavasai has not filed any suit for specific performance of the contract, hence, the Court below has viewed for the possibility of fabricating the document, which could not be construed as defamatory or pre-conclusion against the petitioners. 9. In this revision, this Court has to consider whether the order passed by the Court below would prejudice the rights of the petitioners/defendants. It would not be the botheration of the petitioners/defendants to implead any third party, based on an alleged agreement, stating that there was earlier agreement between the petitioners/defendants and a third party. The petitioners being the defendants cannot file any petition to implead a third party, as third defendant in the suit in a suit for specific performance of contract, saying that they had already entered into an agreement of sale with another person and that third party should be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. 10. Having gone through the reasons assigned by the Court below and also the grounds raised in this revision, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.