The Indore Bench of MP High Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition against the learned trial Court Order in which the direction was issued to the petitioners to file separate suits against all the defendants.

This Court held that in a case enforcing an agreement of sale for specific performance between petitioner and respondent, the remaining respondents are not a necessary party. Therefore, the trial Court has the power to order for filing of a separate suit.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.22 in which the petitioner was directed to file separate suits against the defendants for specific performance of the contract and value them separately.

The petitioner entered into a contract with all the respondents with interest to purchase the entire area of all the land as one chunk to start its industry. However, respondents No.1 to 11 did not perform their part as per the terms of the contract. When the petitioner filed a civil suit for the decree of specific performance by joining all the defendants in one suit, the defendants objected by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation, misjoinder of the cause of action and misjoinder of parties.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action and relief against all the respondents are identical. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, one suit has been filed against the defendants permissible under Order I Rule 3 of the CPC. To support his contention, he had placed reliance on Parashramsao & Others v/s Hiralal S/o Adku Patil reported in AIR 1947 Nag 86 in which the Nagpur High Court held that Order II Rule 6 of the CPC does not contemplate that plaintiff should be asked to file a separate suit.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that based on the valuation of the property in the agreement, each suit is liable to be valued and charged with an ad valorem court fee. He further added that based on the valuation of the property and suit, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court is also liable to be decided. Therefore, if the petitioner gets permitted to file a single suit, then the trial Court cannot consider all these issues.

Observation of the Court

The Court noticed that in a suit of specific performance of the agreement, the remaining defendants need not be impleaded as they are not necessary parties to the suit. Further, the Court believed that where there are various issues which are required to be decided between the parties like limitation, court fee, valuation etc., the trial Court in the interest of justice, has power under Order I Rule 3A of the CPC to order for separate suits.

In the present case, the plaintiff entered into a separate agreement to sale with each landowner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there cannot be an omnibus allegation or generalized way of conduct between the seller and purchaser in different agreements to sale. The Court had further placed their reliance on the order of Apex Court in Anil Kumar Singh v/s Shivnath Mishra Alias Gadasa Guru reported in (1995) 2 SCC 147 in which they specifically held that Order I Rule 3 does not apply to the suit for specific performance because admittedly, the respondent was not a party to the contract.

The decision of the Court:

This Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition and upheld the order of the learned trial Court with the observations as mentioned earlier.

Case Title: Remound Estate Pvt. Ltd vs Mohammad Saleem Ghori and Others

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Rusia

Case no.: MISC. PETITION No. 5944 of 2022

Advocate for the Petitioner: Shri Rohinton T. Thanevala

Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Bharat I. Mehta

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :