2024 (III) ILR-CUT-694
SASMITA NAYAK V. ANITA PATTNAIK & ORS. (CMP NO. 492 OF 2020)
📌👆 SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Section 19(b) – One contract for sale was executed by the original defendant in favor of the plaintiff – Suit for specific performance of such agreement for sale has been filed against the defendant (and after his death, the legal heirs) – Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint as well as to implead eleven lis pendens purchasers as parties to the suits alleging that the owner of the suit properties executed eleven sale deeds in favor of those persons in respect of different portion of the suit property on payment of consideration – Whether a lis pendens purchaser is a necessary party to a suit for specific contract. Held: No – The parties to be impleaded in the present suit are not necessary parties as no relief is claimed against them in the suit and a decree for specific performance may be passed in their absence. (Para 9)
📌👆INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – Doctrine of lis pendens discussed with reference to case laws.