Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. In Gurmauj Saran Baluja v. Mrs. Joyce C. Salim and Ors. , a Division Bench of this court has clearly held that the doctrine of dominus litus cannot be applied in all circumstances. It was observed:

"16. Plaintiff right to choose his defendants is circumscribed by the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 1. His right to choose his defendants is not absolute. Where a person has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and the decision on one of the issues involved in the suit might knock out the basis of the suit for specific performance filed by him against one of the defendants in the present suit filed by the plaintiff, the Court can direct the plaintiff to implead him as defendant.....A transferee pendente lite of property in suit may not be a necessary as he would be bound by the decree passed, the suit on account of the doctrine of lies pendency as contained in Section 52 of the T.P. Act Provisions of Section 52 are applicable in suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property, but inspite of the fact that in such a suit a plaintiff is protected by lis pendency the court does times protect him further by an injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the property during the pendency of the suit, particularly where the court prima facie finds that a valid contract of sale exists.
17. It is true that doctrine of lis pendence shall apply in the instant suit but application of the said doctrine itself would not debar a person from being imp leaded as a party particularly when there is a possibility that the petitioner, if not imp leaded, may suffer substantial injury.
18. In Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., it has been held that in case an interim injunction is granted restraining the respondents from alienating the property, the purchasers are necessary parties for avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings.
19. In Sanjay Gupta v. Kala Wati , a learned single Judge of this court has referred to a large number of decisions but, with respect, failed to consider Mahinder Kaur v. Sudarshan Krishna, 1992 RLR 274 in its proper perspective. It is not correct that Mahinder Kaur was not an authority for deciding the question of right of transferee pendente lite being imp leaded as party during pendency of the suit. It is true that Mahinder Kaur did not consider the decision of Joginder Singh Bedi v. Sardar Singh Narang and Ors., but the fact situation obtaining therein was absolutely different. In Joginder Singh Bedi, a suit for specific performance of contract was filed and during the pendency of the suit, the property was transferred. Therein, the doctrine of lis pendence was applied and it was held that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC would not be attracted. However, we may notice that in Dwarka Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Harikant Prasad Singh and Ors., , it was held that vender is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance against a purchaser with notice of prior agreement for sale.