LexSUMTIBAI & OTHERS versus PARAS FINANCE CO. REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEAWER(RAJ.)THRU SMT. MANKANWAR W/O PARASMAL CHORDIA (DEAD) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i I SUMTIBAI & OTHERS v. PARAS FINANCE CO. REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEAWER(RAJ.)THRUSMT.MANKANWAR W/O PARASMAL CHORDIA (DEAD) & ORS. OCTOBER 4, 2007 [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0. 22 R. 4(2) r/w 0. 1 R. JO- C Application under, by legal representatives-Maintainability of-Suit ·for specific performance of contract of sale-During pendency, death df purchaser-Legal representatives impleaded, however their application to file additional written statement rejected-Correctness of-Held: Property was purchased in favour of the deceased and his D sons-They had semblance of title and are not mere busybodies or interlopers-Merely allowing them to be impleaded but not allowing them to file additional written statement would violate natural justice-Thus, orders of courts below rejecting application to file additional written statement, set aside. E K entered into an agreement to sell his property to the respondent Respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract for sale against K. During pendency of the suit, K died and his legal representatives-appellants were impleaded. Thereafter, appellants filed F application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement and be allowed to take pleas which were available to them. Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved appellants filed Revision Petition which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. A party has a right to take whatever plea he/she wants to ~3 H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S:C.R. A take. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. [Paras 5 and 8] (547-B; 546-C] B 1.2. It cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to r;nultiplicity of C proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced. [Para 14] (550-E, F, G] 2.1. In the instant case, the registered sale deed by which the D property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only K but also his sons. Thus, prim a facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only K but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons ofK have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers. The legal representatives of E late K have a right to take this defence whether they are co-owners or not byway of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide. [Paras 7 and 9) [546-F,G; 547-A,F,G] F 2.2. Appellants have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allow~d to take a defence. Merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives oflate K should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served G by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. This will clearly violate natural justice. Hence, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs ofK to file an additional written statement. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court are set H aside. The appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement \ '" T I SUMTIBAI v. PARAS FINANCE CO. REGD. 545 PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEA WER (KATJU, J.] and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with A law. [Paras 15and16) [550-G; 551-A, B) Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., [2005) 6 SCC 733, distinguished. StateofOrissav.SudhansuSekhar Misra, AIR(1968)SC647;Ambica Quarry Worksv. State of Gujarat and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.