Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 289 (JHR)

Jayant Kumar Singh v. Bariak Naval Kishore

2016-02-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 10.09.2014 in the Title Suit No. 02 of 2013 whereby, application under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC has been allowed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. In spite of valid service of notice, the respondents have not appeared in the present proceeding. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Title Suit No. 02 of 2013 was instituted by Jayant Kumar Singh and Lal Chandra Shekhar Nath Shahdeo for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 03.08.2010 registered on 04.08.2010. The description of the suit schedule property reads as under; Schedule “Land measuring 15 decimals being partition of Revisional Survey Plot No. 853 and 10 decimals being Revisional Survey Plot No. 865 (total area 0.25 acres) towards eastern side of khata no. 1 situated at Gumla, within ward No. 17, P.S. Gumla, Thana no. 59 District Gumla in the State of Jharkhand and bounded and butted at follows: North:- Ganpati Singh and Krishna Soni South:-River East:-Talab West:- Park.” 5. The application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent no. 1 taking a plea that he has apprehension that in the garb of agreement dated 03.08.2010, the plaintiffs may claim the part of land in plot no. 853 which belongs to him. In the said application, the respondent no. 1 admits that there was a partition between Maheshwari Prasad Singh and him and the said partition was reduced in writing on 01.05.2012 between the successors of late Maheshwari Prasad Singh and the respondent no. 1. The defendant in Title Suit No. 02 of 2013 namely, Meena Devi is one of the heirs and successors of late Maheshwari Prasad Singh. The respondent no. 1 claims that he got 4.42 acres land in plot no. 853 within khata no. 1 towards “north” whereas, the suit schedule property admeasuring about 0.25 acres is situated towards “eastern side” of khata no. 1. In a suit for specific performance a stranger to the agreement is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. In cases where application has been filed for impleading subsequent purchaser, such applications have normally been allowed. The issue whether a purchaser should be impleaded as party in a suit for specific performance in which he has interest in immovable property, is no more res integra. In “Saila Bala Dassi Vs. In cases where application has been filed for impleading subsequent purchaser, such applications have normally been allowed. The issue whether a purchaser should be impleaded as party in a suit for specific performance in which he has interest in immovable property, is no more res integra. In “Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another”, reported in AIR 1958 SC 394 , it has been observed that, “a pendente lite purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect his rights”. 6. The respondent no. 1/intervenor is neither a purchaser nor he is laying claim over the suit schedule property. Application for impleadment was filed on the apprehension that the plaintiffs may encroach upon the land in plot no. 853 belonging to him. I am of the opinion that the Trial Judge committed an error in ignoring the plea taken by the respondent no. 1. The impugned order dated 10.09.2014 suffers from serious infirmity in law and accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.