IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4755 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14602 of 2006)

Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Pushpendra Kumari & Others       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

In a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated

10.4.1977 instituted by the petitioner against Respondent No.1 with a further prayer

for  grant  of  a  decree  of  permanent  injunction  restraining  Respondent  Nos.1  to  9

herein from interfering with his possession, trial court allowed the application filed by

Respondent No.10 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and

granted her prayer for impleadment as a defendant.  The petitioner unsuccessfully

challenged the order of the Trial Court by filing writ petition before the Orissa High

Court and then preferred petition for special leave to appeal.

Notice has been served upon Respondent No.10 but she has not appeared

either in-person or through an advocate to contest the prayer made in the appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent Nos.1, 2,

4, 5, 8, and 9.

....2/-

- 2 -

It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed suit in the year 1979 for specific

performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated 10.4.1977.  In that suit, the only

scope of enquiry would be as to whether the said agreement was, in fact, executed

between the petitioner and Respondent No.1.  Respondent No.10 is alleged to have

entered  into  an  agreement  with  Respondent  No.1  on  15.11.1984  for  sale  of  the

property, which is the subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner.  In respect of

such  an  agreement,  Respondent  No.10,  could  have  filed  a  suit  for  specific

performance but, as stated by learned counsel appearing for the parties, no such suit

has been filed.  In our opinion respondent No.10 was not at all a necessary party for

determination of the genuinness or otherwise of the agreement of sale which is said to

have been entered into between the petitioner and Respondent No.1.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the

application filed by Respondent No.10 for impleadment is dismissed.

As  the  suit  was  filed  in  the  year  1977,  the  Trial  Court  shall  make  all

possible efforts for its disposal as early as possible.  

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 01, 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4755 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14602 of 2006)

Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Pushpendra Kumari & Others       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

In the third last line of the order dated 1st August, 2008, the year “1977” be

read as “1979”.

Ordered accordingly.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 01, 2008.