JUDGMENT
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.
(1) ADMIT. Shri Panna Lal Suri is the owner of the land in dispute about which there was an agreement of sale with Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murthy and Dr. B.S. Krishna Murthy. Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murhty and Dr. B.s. Krishna Murthy filed a suit for specific performance against Shri Panna Lal Suri, but while the suit for specific performance was pending Shri Panna Lal Suri agreed to sell 7/8th share of the same property to Smt. Mohinder Kaur. Soon after the agreement was entered into by Shri Pana Lal Suri in favor of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Smt. Mohinder Kaur moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading her as a co-defendant in suit to safe-guard her interest on the basis of the agreement of sale referred to above. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29th July, 1991 dismissed the application saying that she was neither necessary nor proper party for the suit. Reliance was made to Narayan Chandra Garai vs. Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd., in taking the view.
“ON a consideration of the matter we are of the view that under Order 22 Rule 10 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Smt. Mohinder Kaur was a proper party to be added from the stage she came to Court for being imp leaded as a defendant to safeguard her interest not only against the plaintiff but also against Shri Panna Lal Suri who may enter into another contract as he has already entered into two contracts or to defeat Shri Panna Lal Suri from entering into compromise with the plaintiff behind her back.”
“WHERE a person who has only an agreement of sale in his/her favor, has been held to have some interest in the litigation as per decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Dosabai Vs. Mathurdas Govindas. and a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Mrs. Saradambal Ammal vs. E.R. Kandasamy Goundar, Air (36) 1949 Madras 23.” On behalf of the plaitiff, reliance has been placed on Ram Daran Prasad vs. Ram Mohit Hazra, for the proposition that subsequent transferee would have no interest in the litigation. That judgment has also been considered in Bai Dosabai (supra) by the Supreme Court.
The Calcutta High Court decision was referred by the learned Single Judge but we find that the same has no bearing with the facts of the present case. Again a Division Bench of this Court in Gurmauj Saran Baluja vs. Mrs. Joyce C.Salim has come to the conclusion that to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to cut short the litigation it is always proper to add proper parties. It is true, that under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act a person having agreement to sell in his favor does not get any right in the property except the right to litigation on this basis. “FOR the reasons stated above the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and Smt. Mohinder Kaur is made a defendant in the suit as a proper party. She would be deemed to have become party when she made the application and will take part in the proceedings from that stage onwards and cannot claimed trial of the suit de novo.”
(2) The name of Smt. Mohinder Kaur be added as a defendant in the suit without asking the plaintiff or the defendant. If necessary, any of the parties can file the amended memo of parties in the suit without delay.