GURMIT SINGH BHATIA versus KIRAN KANT ROBINSON AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 17-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
GURMIT SINGH BHATIA
v.
KIRAN KANT ROBINSON AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-5523 of 2019)
JULY 17, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.1, r.10 – Impleadment of
party – Respondent nos. 2 & 3-original plaintiffs filed a suit against
respondent no.1-original defendant no.1 for specific performance
of the agreement to sell/contract – During the pendency of the suit
and despite the injunction against the respondent no.1 not to alienate
or transfer the suit property, he executed a sale deed in favour of
appellant – Pursuant thereto, appellant filed an application u/Or.1
r.10 of the CPC for impleadment as a defendant in the suit – Trial
Court directed the original plaintiffs to join the appellant as a
defendant in the suit – Writ petition – High Court set aside the order
passed by the Trial Court and held that as no relief was claimed
against the appellant, he cannot be said to be necessary or formal
party – On appeal, held: Considering the principle that plaintiff is
the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom
he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of
law – Also, considering the decision of Supreme Court in the case
of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, the appellant cannot be impleaded as
a defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for specific
performance of the contract against the original defendant no.1 to
which the appellant is not a party and that too against the wish of
the plaintiffs – No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to implead
a person in the suit for specific performance, against his wish and
more particularly with respect to a person against whom no relief
has been claimed by him?
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 593
593
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
1.1  An identical question came to be considered before
this Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and applying
the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held
that the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1
Rule 10 CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by
the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added
has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the
suit.  It is further observed and held by this Court that two tests
are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary
party.  The tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief
against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the
proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence
of such party.  It is further observed and held that in a suit for
specific performance the first test can be formulated is, to
determine whether a party is a necessary party there must be a
right to the same relief against the party claiming to be a
necessary party, relating to the same subject matter involved in
the proceedings for specific performance of contract to sell.  It is
further observed and held by this Court that in a suit for specific
performance of the contract, a proper party is a party whose
presence is necessary to adjudicate the controversy involved in
the suit.  It is further observed and held that the parties claiming
an independent title and possession adverse to the title of the
vendor and not on the basis of the contract, are not proper parties
and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for
specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and
possession, which is impermissible.  It is further observed and
held that a third party or a stranger cannot be added in a suit for
specific performance, merely in order to find out who is in
possession of the contracted property or to avoid multiplicity of
the suits.  It is further observed and held by this Court that a
third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added so as to
convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character.
[Para 5.2] [600-E-H; 601-A-C]
1.2  That thereafter, after observing and holding as above,
this Court further observed that in view of the principle that the
plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract
to sell is the dominus litis, he cannot be forced to add parties
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
against whom, he does not wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.