SHEELA YADAV AND ANR v. REKHA KUMARI AND OTHERS

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming a preferential right to occupy and purchase the suit land from the defendants for Rs.32,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, an injunction order was passed directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Despite this, Defendant No.1 executed a sale agreement in favor of respondent No.1, Rekha Kumari, on 11.09.2020, receiving Rs.10,00,000/- through two cheques. Subsequently, the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 colluded and filed a settlement deed in the Civil Court seeking disposal of the suit in terms of that settlement. Upon learning this, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be impleaded as a party in the pending suit. The trial Court allowed this application, and the plaintiffs challenged this order in the present revision petition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether respondent No.1 could be impleaded as a party in the pending suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC despite the suit already being between the plaintiffs and defendants.
2. Whether the agreement to sell executed by Defendant No.1 in favor of respondent No.1 during the pendency of the suit and in violation of the injunction order confers any right on respondent No.1 to be a party to the suit.
3. Whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to litigate against respondent No.1, who claims rights under the sale agreement.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The agreement to sell was entered into by Defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit and in violation of the injunction order.
• Respondent No.1 has a remedy against Defendant No.1 but cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit.
• The agreement to sell does not create any right in favor of respondent No.1.
• The petitioners, being dominus litis (master of the suit), cannot be forced to litigate against respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1's Arguments

• The plaintiffs and defendants are attempting to deceive respondent No.1, who has parted with Rs.10,00,000/- under the agreement to sell.
• There is no scope for interference in the impugned order allowing impleadment.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that while an agreement to sell does not create an immediate right in favor of the agreement holder, it does confer a right to sue for specific performance. Defendant No.1 entered into such an agreement with respondent No.1 and received Rs.10,00,000/-. Subsequently, Defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs sought to settle the suit, which appeared to be a collusive attempt to deceive respondent No.1. Given these circumstances, the Court found it inappropriate to interfere with the trial Court's order allowing respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a party. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had yet to establish their preferential rights, reinforcing the need to allow respondent No.1’s participation in the suit.

Holding and Implications

The revision petition is dismissed.

The Court upheld the trial Court's order permitting respondent No.1 to be impleaded as a party to the suit. This decision ensures that respondent No.1 can protect her interests arising from the agreement to sell and prevents possible collusion between the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to the detriment of respondent No.1. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affects the parties by maintaining respondent No.1’s status in the litigation.