Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On perusal of the record it becomes axiomatic that the alleged agreement dated 23.11.2012 was executed between the petitioner no.1 Vishandas Parwani and the respondent no. 3 and except both of them, no other person was party to the said agreement. It would not be out of place to mention here that the respondents had filed two civil suits bearing RCS No.1089A/12 and RCS No.109B/12 for specific performance of agreement and also for recovering Rs.8,54,42,529/- but the respondents withdrew both the aforesaid civil suits without any liberty. Moreover, as per the petitioner no.1, the alleged agreement is said to have been fraudulently prepared by the respondents and when this fact came into knowledge of the petitioner no.1, he immediately lodged an FIR against the respondents and a copy whereof is also annexed with the petition as Annexure-P/3. This court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are not necessary party and not proper party to the suit. Apart from above, there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the petitioners no. 2 to 7 were very well aware of the alleged agreement to have been executed between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 3 and it is also evident that no relief was sought against the petitioners no. 2 to 7 in the earlier suits filed by the respondent no. 3. Further, the petitioners no. 2 to 7 were not the attesting witnesses of the alleged agreement dated 23.11.2012.