(A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
Pankaj Kishor Shah _________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Naresh Purushotham Khetan and Another ___________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 2474 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4509 of 2021), decided on July 12, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Despite service, respondent No. 2 has not chosen to appear.
4. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the presence of respondent No. 2 in the suit filed by the appellant against respondent No. 1 is essential, if not as necessary party, at least, as a proper party.
5. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed in the year 2000, whereas agreement between the respondents inter-se in respect of the suit property had been entered into in the year 2007.
6. Resultantly, it is stated that the appellant had no other option but to move a formal application before the Trial Court to implead respondent No. 2 in the pending suit and also to bring on record subsequent events. That application was rejected by the Trial Court and also by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.03.2021 in Writ Petition No. 12514 of 2018.
7. In our opinion, it is not open to respondent No. 1 to contend that the decree if passed against respondent No. 1 would not bind the respondent No. 2. Similarly, respondent No. 2 cannot disown the relationship as the right accrues to her only because of the subsequent agreement between the respondents inter-se.
8. In other words, respondent No. 2 is claiming right, title and interest through respondent No. 1. In such a situation, it is appropriate to allow the application to avoid any further litigation pertaining to the suit property; and, more so, because the transaction between respondents inter-se is during the pendency of the suit, for which reason respondent No. 2 is a proper party to the proceedings.
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The application preferred by the appellant for impleadment of respondent No. 2 in the pending suit and for bringing on record subsequent events stands allowed. The amendment to the plaint be carried out within four weeks from today.
10. Needless to observe that this amendment will be subject to just exceptions and without prejudice to all other pleas available to the parties.
11. Since the suit pertains to year 2000, the same be proceeded expeditiously, preferably within six months after the amendment of plaint, in terms of this order, is carried out.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4509/2021
Pankaj Kishor Shah _________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Naresh Purushotham Khetan & Anr _________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 12-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Yatin R. Shah, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sunita Poddar, Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rohan Waghmare, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Leave granted.
15. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
