Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff’s Right to Choose Parties in Specific Performance Suit: Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs. Kiran Kant Robinson (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-5523 of 2019
Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a third party, who purchased a property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, be added as a defendant against the wishes of the original plaintiff? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question, emphasizing the plaintiff’s right to control their case. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to include a party in a suit for specific performance if they do not wish to seek relief against that party. This judgment underscores the principle of ‘dominus litis’, which grants the plaintiff the right to decide who they want to litigate against.

Case Background

The case began when the original plaintiffs (Respondents 2 & 3) filed a suit for specific performance against the original defendant (Respondent 1) in the Court of the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. This suit was based on an agreement to sell dated May 3, 2005. During the pendency of this suit, and despite an injunction against the original defendant from transferring the property, the defendant executed a sale deed in favor of the appellant (Gurmit Singh Bhatia) on July 10, 2008. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit, claiming a direct interest in the property. The trial court allowed this application on November 5, 2012, leading to the original plaintiffs filing a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in its judgment dated July 3, 2013, allowed the writ petition filed by the original plaintiffs and set aside the trial court’s order that had allowed the appellant’s impleadment. The High Court reasoned that since no relief was claimed against the appellant, he could not be considered a necessary or formal party. A subsequent review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court on August 5, 2013. This led to the appellant filing the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the impleadment of parties. The Supreme Court also considered the principle of dominus litis, which recognizes the plaintiff’s right to control the litigation. The Court referred to its previous decision in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal [(2005) 6 SCC 733], which clarified the criteria for determining necessary and proper parties in a suit for specific performance.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s order, which had correctly identified the appellant as a necessary and proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC.
• The appellant claimed to have purchased the suit property and also held a prior agreement to sell, thus having a direct interest in the suit property.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar [(2018) 15 SCC 614] and the Bombay High Court’s decision in Shri Swastik Developers vs. Saket Kumar Jain [2014 (2) Mh. L.J 968] to support his claim for impleadment.

Original Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The original plaintiffs contended that the appellant purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and in violation of an injunction.
• They argued that the prior agreement to sell claimed by the appellant was concocted and forged.
• The plaintiffs asserted that they are the dominus litis and cannot be forced to include a party in the suit, especially one who is not a party to the original contract.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal [(2005) 6 SCC 733], arguing that it squarely covered the issue against the appellant.
• The plaintiffs distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, stating that those cases involved situations where the plaintiff sought to implead a subsequent purchaser, not where the plaintiff opposed such impleadment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to implead a person in the suit for specific performance, against their wish, particularly when no relief has been claimed against that person?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal [(2005) 6 SCC 733] – Supreme Court of India: This case was central to the Court’s decision. It established that a third party cannot be added to a suit for specific performance against the plaintiff’s wishes, especially if no relief is sought against that party. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom they do not want to fight.
• Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar [(2018) 15 SCC 614] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellant but distinguished by the Court. The Court clarified that this case involved a situation where the plaintiff sought to implead a subsequent purchaser, unlike the present case where the plaintiff opposed such impleadment.
• Shri Swastik Developers vs. Saket Kumar Jain [2014 (2) Mh. L.J 968] – Bombay High Court: This case was also cited by the appellant and distinguished by the Court for the same reason as the Robin Ramjibhai Patel case.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This provision deals with the impleadment of parties in a suit. The Court interpreted this provision in light of the principle of dominus litis and the specific context of a suit for specific performance.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of dominus litis, which recognizes the plaintiff’s right to control their case. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to include a party in a suit for specific performance if they do not wish to seek relief against that party. This principle was considered paramount in the Court’s reasoning. The Court also carefully considered the facts of the case, noting that the appellant had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and in violation of an injunction, which further weakened his claim for impleadment. The Court also distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the facts of those cases were different from the present case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but rejected them in favor of upholding the principle of dominus litis and the specific context of a suit for specific performance. The Court reasoned that allowing the impleadment of a third party against the plaintiff’s wishes would enlarge the scope of the suit and convert it into a suit for title and possession, which is impermissible. The Court also noted that any decree passed in the suit would not bind the appellant, and the appellant would be at liberty to file a separate suit to protect his interests. The Court, therefore, concluded that the appellant was not a necessary party to the suit.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: the appellant could not be impleaded as a defendant in the suit for specific performance against the wishes of the original plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs, as dominus litis, had the right to choose who they wanted to litigate against. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision.

“…the plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to sell is the dominus litis, he cannot be forced to add parties against whom, he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law.”

“…a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character.”

“…the parties claiming an independent title and possession adverse to the title of the vendor and not on the basis of the contract, are not proper parties and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and possession, which is impermissible.”

Key Takeaways

• A plaintiff in a suit for specific performance cannot be compelled to implead a third party against their wishes, especially if no relief is sought against that party.
• The principle of dominus litis is paramount, granting the plaintiff the right to control their case and choose who they want to litigate against.
• Subsequent purchasers of a property involved in a specific performance suit cannot automatically be impleaded as defendants if the original plaintiff opposes it.
• This judgment reinforces the limited scope of a suit for specific performance and prevents it from being converted into a suit for title and possession.
• The decision provides clarity on the application of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in the context of specific performance suits.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance cannot be compelled to implead a third party against their wishes, particularly if no relief is sought against that party. This decision reaffirms the principle of dominus litis and clarifies the limitations on impleading parties in specific performance suits. It does not introduce a new principle but reinforces the existing legal position as established in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add a party against their wishes, particularly if no relief is sought against that party. This judgment reinforces the established legal position and provides clarity on the application of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in specific performance suits.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Law
Child Categories: Specific Performance, Impleadment of Parties, Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1 Rule 10, Dominus Litis, Contract Law
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

FAQ

Q: What does ‘dominus litis’ mean in the context of a lawsuit?
A: ‘Dominus litis’ means that the plaintiff has control over the lawsuit. This includes the right to decide who to sue and what relief to seek.

Q: Can a person who buys a property during a pending lawsuit be added as a defendant?
A: It depends. If the original plaintiff opposes the impleadment, and no relief is sought against the new purchaser, they cannot be forced to add them as a defendant.

Q: What is a suit for specific performance?
A: A suit for specific performance is a legal action to enforce a contract, typically for the sale of land or property. The court orders the party to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case?
A: The judgment reinforces the principle that plaintiffs have the right to control their lawsuits and clarifies that a suit for specific performance cannot be converted into a suit for title and possession by adding third parties against the plaintiff’s wishes.

Q: What if the plaintiff does not implead a party who has a claim on the property?
A: The plaintiff proceeds at their own risk. If the plaintiff does not implead a party who has a claim on the property, the decree may not bind that party and the plaintiff may have to face further litigation.