Bombay High Court
SHRI. KISHORELAL CHUGHversusSHRI. VINOD RAMNATH RAO AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The petitioner is not a necessary party and cannot be impleaded as a defendant; the trial court's order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, a third‑party applicant, sought to be added as a defendant in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 for specific performance of a 2009 agreement. He claimed that a subsequent tripartite agreement dated 15 June 2010 transferred the right, title and interest in the suit property to him, making him a necessary party. Respondent No.1 contended that no registered document created such interest and that the suit was directed against the heirs of the original owner, so the petitioner was not required to be impleaded. The trial court held that the petitioner had no privity of contract with the plaintiff and could pursue his own remedy, rejecting his application to intervene. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s discretion, finding no illegality or perversity in its order, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to be impleaded as a defendant in the specific performance suit.
- Whether the tripartite agreement creates a right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner sufficient to make him a necessary party.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petition under the discretionary jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- specific performance
- impleadment
- necessary party
- third‑party intervention
- civil procedure
- Article 227
- discretionary jurisdiction
Judgment
13-wp-2254-2017.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2254 OF 2017
Shri Kishorelal Chugh … Petitioner
vs.
Shri Vinod Ramnath Rao and Ors … Respondents
Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Petitioner.
Mr. Abubakar Patel i/b. J.S. Legal for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Vipul Raut i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondent No.7-
CIDCO.
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
RAJGURU Date:
2026.02.18
13:15:56
+0530 DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the third party applicant to challenge
the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for
adding him as a party defendant in the suit filed by respondent no.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is
claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 19th
September 2009, allegedly executed by the heirs and legal
representatives of the original owner, Krishna Damaji Bhoir. He
submits that before the suit was filed tripartite agreement dated 15 th
June 2010 was executed in favour of the petitioner by the heirs and
Page no. 1 of 3
13-wp-2254-2017.doc
legal representatives of the original owner and one Jagdamba
Dwarikaprasad Gupta. He submits that in the suit filed by the said
Gupta, the right, title, and interest in respect of the suit property is
transferred in his name. Hence, in view of the tripartite agreement,
the petitioner has right in respect of the suit property. He therefore
submits that the petitioner would be the necessary party in the suit
filed by respondent no.1, seeking specific performance of the
agreement in his favour.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 supports the impugned
order. He submits that there is no right, title and interest created in
favour of the petitioner as there is no substantive registered
document transferring right, title and interest in his favour.
Respondent no. 1’s claim is for specific performance against the
heirs and legal representatives of the original owner. Hence, the
petitioner would not be a necessary party to the suit.
4. I have perused the papers of the petition. The plaintiff seeks
specific performance of the contract on the ground that the heirs
and legal representatives of the original owner executed an
agreement dated 19th September 2009. He submits that the original
owner expired on 21st November 2001. Hence, it is the plaintiff’s
contention that he would be entitled to specific performance of the
Page no. 2 of 3
13-wp-2254-2017.doc
contract based on the agreement executed by the heirs of the
original owner. The trial court held that the plaintiff is the dominus
litus and thus, it is for the plaintiff to decide whom to implead as a
party to the litigation. The agreement, based on which the petitioner
seeks to be impleaded, is not the document of title. There is no
privity of contract between the petitioner and the plaintiff. Hence, the
trial court held that the petitioner can pursue his own remedy for
redressal of the grievance, if any. However, the third party is not
entitled to intervene for adding as a party defendant in the suit.
5. In view of the facts as recorded in the preceding paragraphs,
no fault can be found in the reasons recorded in the impugned
order. There is no illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in
the impugned order, warranting any interference in exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
6. The writ petition is therefore rejected.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 3 of 3
Checking your session…