Bagicha, Masanganj, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh v. Rajnish Ojha ( Alias Raja)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 3232. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of…
Judgment
Smt. Prabhawati Ojha W/o Late Ishwar Din Ojha Aged About 66 Years R/o Sarju Bagicha, Masanganj, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Imran Khan S/o Late Sultan Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Sarju Bagicha, Masanganj, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07-07-2025 Heard on admission. 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned First Civil Judge–Senior Division, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 66A/2023 dated 08.04.2025, whereby the application moved by respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed and he has been impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner [plaintiff] instituted a 2 civil suit against respondents No. 1 and 2 [defendants No. 1 and 2] for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction pertaining to Plot No. 115/2 ad-measuring 1,323 sq. ft situated at Masanganj, Bilaspur.
During the pendency of the suit, one Imran Khan moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 3 on 24.05.2024 and the advance amount Rs. 6,30,000/- was paid. The plaintiff filed a reply to the said application and denied its averments. It was specifically pleaded that the document is a forged one as Imran Khan has put his signature as a seller. The learned Trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 08.04.2025 and directed the plaintiff to implead Imran Khan as defendant No. 3. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court committed an error of law while allowing the application moved by defendant No. 3. He further submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the genuineness of the agreement to sell entered into between respondents No. 1 and 3. He contends that the agreement to sell was executed by respondents No.
1 and 2 in favor of the petitioner way back on 19.11.2009. He argues that respondent No. 3 has signed the agreement dated 24.05.2025 as a seller and not as a purchaser. He further argues that respondent No. 3 ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was not maintainable. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents available on the record. 5) Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter 3 of M/s J.N. Real Estate Versus Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.1 in para– 32 held as under:-
Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We say so because the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. In the aforementioned para, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the genuineness of a document is to be looked into in the course of the trial. It is further held that a necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court, whereas a proper party is one whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. 6) Perusal of the order impugned would show that the learned Trial Court has assigned sufficient reasons while allowing the application. Learned 1 . 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519 4 Trial Court has held that defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell his land with defendant No. 3 on 24.05.2024 and a true copy of the said agreement has been placed on record. It is also held that the genuineness of a document may be considered during the course of the trial. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has decided the application after considering all grounds raised by respective parties. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of M/s J.N. Real Estate (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 8) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya PANSARE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.