The Supreme Court of India in Sumtibai Vs. Paras Finance Co., AIR 2007 SC 3166 : 2007 (10) SCR 543 : (2007) 10 SCC 82 : 2007 (11) SCALE 596 : JT 2007 (11) SC 479 held that merely allowing the legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file additional written statement would violate natural justice.
A bench comprising of A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju JJ. observed that property was purchased in favour of the deceased and his sons. They had semblance of title and are not mere busybodies or interlopers. Thus, orders of courts below rejecting application to file additional written statement, set aside.
# Additional Written Statement
Kapoor Chand entered into an agreement to sell his property to the respondent. Respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract for sale against Kapoor Chand. During pendency of the suit, Kapoor Chand died and his legal representatives-appellants were impleaded.
Thereafter, appellants filed application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement and be allowed to take pleas which were available to them. Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved appellants filed Revision Petition which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court held that every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. A party has a right to take whatever plea he/she wants to take. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing.
It cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment.
To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.
In the instant case, the registered sale deed by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Thus, prima facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.
The legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence whether they are co-owners or not by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide.
Appellants have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. Merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement.
In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. This will clearly violate natural justice. Hence, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written statement.
The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court are set aside. The appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
Advocates B.D. Sharma, Narottam Vyas and Vikramjeet Sikand appeared for the Appellants and Sushil Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Piyush Jain for the Respondents.
# Case Law Reference
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., [2005] 6 SCC 733
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR (1968) SC 647
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 213
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 2 SC 111
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. N.R.Vairamani and Anr., AIR (2004) SC 4778
A bench comprising of A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju JJ. observed that property was purchased in favour of the deceased and his sons. They had semblance of title and are not mere busybodies or interlopers. Thus, orders of courts below rejecting application to file additional written statement, set aside.
# Additional Written Statement
Kapoor Chand entered into an agreement to sell his property to the respondent. Respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract for sale against Kapoor Chand. During pendency of the suit, Kapoor Chand died and his legal representatives-appellants were impleaded.
Thereafter, appellants filed application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement and be allowed to take pleas which were available to them. Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved appellants filed Revision Petition which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court held that every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. A party has a right to take whatever plea he/she wants to take. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing.
It cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment.
To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.
In the instant case, the registered sale deed by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Thus, prima facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.
The legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence whether they are co-owners or not by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide.
Appellants have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. Merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement.
In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. This will clearly violate natural justice. Hence, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written statement.
The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court are set aside. The appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
Advocates B.D. Sharma, Narottam Vyas and Vikramjeet Sikand appeared for the Appellants and Sushil Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Piyush Jain for the Respondents.
# Case Law Reference
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors., [2005] 6 SCC 733
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR (1968) SC 647
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 213
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., (2003) 2 SC 111
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. N.R.Vairamani and Anr., AIR (2004) SC 4778
Comments
Post a Comment