Project Report of Code of Civil Procedure

On
Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.

SCHOOL OF LAW
SEMESTER-VII

SUBMITTED BY: - SUBMITTED TO: -

PULKIT GAHLOT (19LLB060) Ms. GARIMA LAKHMANI

1|Page
Contents

Particulars Page No.

Introduction………………………………………………....... 3

Facts of the Case………………………………………….…. 3-4

Issue………………………………………………………… 4

Contentionsof the Appellant………………………………. 4

Contentions of the Respondent……………………………… 4-5

Judgement……..………………………………………..…... 5-6

Analysis………………………………..……………………. 6-7

Conclusion…………………………………………………... 7

2|Page
 Case: Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.

Judge:M.R. Shah

Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 17th July, 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-
5523 of 2019 Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. while upholding the
Order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the Plaintiff cannot be compelled to
implead a person in a suit for specific performance, against his wish and more particularly
with respect to a person against whom no relief has been claimed by the Plaintiff.

FACTS:

 The Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (the Original Plaintiffs) filed a Suit for specific
performance against Respondent No. 1 (the Original Defendant No. 1) of the
Agreement to sell/ contract dated 3rd May, 2005 which was executed by Respondent
No. 1 (the original Defendant No. 1), in the Court of the 4th Additional District Judge,
at Bilaspur.
 During the pendency of the said Suit and despite an injunction against Respondent
No. 1 restraining him from alienating or transferring the suit property, he executed a
sale deed dated 10th July, 2008 in favour of the Appellant.
 The Appellant (the purchaser) who purchased the suit property during the pendency of
the said suit, filed an Application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 in the said suit for impleading himself as a party Defendant in the
Suit.
 The contention of the Appellant was that he had purchased the suit property and
therefore he is a necessary and proper party to the said suit as he had a direct interest
in the suit property. The Trial Court allowed the aforesaid Application vide an order
dated 5th November, 2012 and directed the Original Plaintiffs to implead the
Appellant as a Defendant in the Suit.
 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
(the Original Plaintiffs) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Vide an Order dated 3rd July, 2013, (the impugned Judgment) the High Court allowed
the said Writ Petition and quashed and set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court.

3|Page
  Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a Review Application which also came to be
dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the Appellant moved the Supreme Court by way
of a Special Leave Petition.

ISSUES:

The question that was to be dealt with, in this case before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the Plaintiffs can be compelled to implead a person in a suit for specific
performance, against his wish and more specifically with respect to a person against whom
no relief has been claimed?

Contentions of the Appellant:

The Appellant submitted that while allowing the impleadment Application under Order 1
Rule 10 of the CPC the Trial Court held that, the Appellant had purchased the suit property
from the same vendor and in order to protect the interest of the Appellant in the suit property
he is a necessary and proper party. Therefore the High Court, in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have interfered with the same.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Robin Ramjibhai Patel v.
Anandibai Rama, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shri Swastik Developers
v. Saket Kumar Jain and it was prayed to allow the appeal and quash the order passed by
the High Court.

Contentions ofthe Respondents- (ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF):

The Original Plaintiffs submitted that the facts in the matter of Robin Ramjibhai Patel were
different and the decision of the Supreme Court in the said matter would not be applicable to
this instant case. The judgment in Robin Ramjibhai involved an Application preferred by the
original Plaintiff to implead the subsequent purchaser who purchased the property during the
pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court in that case, allowed the Applications for
impleadment considering the fact that, when the Plaintiff wants to implead certain persons as
party defendants on the ground that they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the
suit, then the interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer for impleadment so that

4|Page
the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may take the appropriate
defence.

However, in the present case, the Appellant purchased the suit property during the pendency
of the said Suit in violation of the injunction granted by the Trial Court. It was argued that a
prior agreement to sell upon which reliance was placed was a concocted and forged one and
hence, the Appellant cannot be impleaded as a Defendant in a suit filed by the original
Plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sell/ contract to which the appellant is
not a party.

The contention of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff is the Dominus litis i.e. master of the suit
and without his consent, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as a defendant. Reliance
was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v.
Iyyamperumal which also covered almost the same issue involved in the said Suit.

Judgement

After hearing the arguments and contentions of both the parties, the Supreme Court decided
that:

 There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies
involved in the proceedings.
 No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
 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 suit property or to avoid multiplicity of
the suits as there was no semblance of right to some relief against the party to the
contract.
 The 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 against whom he does not want to fight unless, it is a
compulsion of the rule of law.

Therefore, emphasis was laid on the case of Kasturi, and the Apex Court held that the
Appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the Original Plaintiffs for

5|Page
the specific performance of the contract between the original Plaintiffs and the original
Defendant No. 1 to which the Appellant is not a party, against the wish of the Plaintiff.

Consequently, the Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court which was passed on 3 rd July, 2013
and the order passed in the Review Petition on 5 th August, 2013 was upheld by the Apex
Court.

Analysis

The presented case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. was a suit for
specific performance. The question raised before the courts to decide upon was primarily if
the appellant can be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for specific performance, filed by the
plaintiffs, without their consent.

The appellant wished to be included in the suit as a defendant by stating that he also had a
lying interest in the suit property. The defendant had executed a slae deed while the pendency
of the suit, in favour of the appellant. Giving substance to this deed, the appellant states that
he has an interest in the suit property and consequently becomes a necessary party to the suit.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs do not consider the appellant as a party to the suit. To decide
as to which party’s claim is actually recognised in the eyes of law, it is important to have a
glance at Order 1 rule 3 of CPC, which provides for joinder of defendants.

Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that any person can be joined as a party
to any suit if :

a) Any right or relief arises out of the same act or out of the same transaction and,
b) Any common question of law or fact arises.

Now, the party can either be a necessary party or a proper party. Here, the appellant wishes to
be added as a necessary party. A necessary party is one, without whom, an effective decision
cannot be made and the decree cannot be passed without their presence. Thus, the appellant’s
argument to allow him to be considered as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 also does not
hold any substance as his presence is not at all necessary in order to adjudicate the matter at
all, let alone properly.

6|Page
In the case at hand, the plaintiffs have sought relief only against the original defendant. As it
is quite evident that no right of relief arises against the appellant. Also, no question of law or
fact arises between the appellant and the plaintiffs since the original defendant had executed
the deed in appellant’s favour. The plaintiffs, as such, did not have any connection with what
had happened between the original defendant and the appellant. Since, none of the conditions
are satisfied for the appellant to be joined as a necessary party, he cannot be held to be a
defendant in the said suit.

But, the trial court ruled in favour of the appellant and ordered that he may be joined as a
defendant. Aggrieved by this order, the original plaintiffs filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Chhattisgarh. The high court quashed and set aside the order of the trial Court and
accepted the petition. Finally, the matter was decided by the Supreme Court ruling that that
the Appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the Original Plaintiffs
for the specific performance of the contract between the original Plaintiffs and the original
Defendant No. 1 to which the Appellant is not a party, against the wish of the Plaintiff.

Conclusion

The case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. Is an apt example of how
only the parties to the suit have the right to admit or not admit any person as a plaintiff or
defendant in it. The joinder of necessary party or a proper party as, mentioned in Order 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the broad structure that any party can be joined as a
necessary party without whom, the decree cannot be passed. But, this particular case helps to
infer that Appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the Original
Plaintiffs for the specific performance of the contract between the original Plaintiffs and the
original Defendants to which the Appellant is not a party, against the wish of the Plaintiffs.

7|Page