15 17.03.2025 Ct. No.22 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 2263 of 2013 Laxmi Complex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kishan Bajaj & Ors. Mr. M.P. Gupta Mr. Ayan Mitra … For the petitioner Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay … For the opposite party no.1 1. Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 11th April, 2013 passed in connection with Title Suit No.172 of 2012 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah allowed one application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) filed by one Shew Ratan Bajaj, being not a party to the suit. 2. The suit for specific performance of contract was filed by one Laxmi Complex Pvt. Ltd. with a view to enforce the contract for sale alleged to have been executed on 23rd February, 2008 for sale of property mentioned in the Second Schedule to the agreement. 3. At the stage of peremptory hearing of the suit, opposite party no.2, Shew Ratan Bajaj, since deceased, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in the Title Suit No.172 of 2012 seeking permission to be 2 a party to the suit, claiming interest over the property and also for adjudication of the issue of the suit in his presence. 4. Learned Trial Judge allowed that application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC on the ground that the subject property of the suit at hand was under consideration by the Hon’ble High Court in a suit for partition and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, the learned Judge, presumably, allowed the application filed by a third party in a suit for specific performance of contract. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner herein submitted that in a suit for specific performance of contract, there is hardly any scope to allow any third party to enter into the suit claiming any interest whatsoever over the subject property of the suit. 6. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following celebrated judgments on the identical issue:-  Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733;  CO 2019 of 2013 (Swami Satyananda v. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Singh & Anr.) delivered on 19th September, 2014; and  Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 773. 3 7. In course of hearing of this revisional application, the opposite party no.2, Shew Ratan Bajaj, expired and his legal heirs were duly substituted as opposite party nos.2(a) to 2(d). Notice was also served upon those legal heirs pursuant to the order of this Court. Affidavit of service has already been filed on 20th January, 2025. In spite of service of notice, the legal heirs did not appear on the last occasion. Today also none appears on behalf of the legal heirs of the opposite party no.2, Shew Ratan Bajaj, since deceased. 8. However, considering the rival contention of the parties before the learned Trial Court, it appears that the opposite party no.2, since deceased, tried to make the learned Trial Court understand that he had some interest over the property and his presence is required for proper adjudication of the suit for specific performance of contract. 9. On carefully going through the judgments, particularly, the ratio of the celebrated judgment of Kasturi (supra), I find that in a suit for specific performance of contract, stranger to the contract claiming any kind of rights independent and adverse to the title of the parties to the suit for specific performance of contract, cannot be held to be a proper party and, therefore, question of right to join as a party defendant in that particular suit for specific performance of contract does not arise. This ratio was subsequently followed by 4 the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2020 in Gurmit Singh Bhatia (supra) and thereafter by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Swami Satyananda (supra). 10. Therefore, I am sorry to subscribe to the view of the learned Trial Court that a party to a partition suit claiming a right to the subject property for a specific performance of contract can be added as a party to that particular suit for specific performance of contract to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding as there is hardly any scope to decide the question of title of a stranger in a suit for specific performance of contract between two parties which shall lead to conversion of the suit for specific performance of contract into a title suit. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no other option is found but to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court, impugned in this revisional application. 12. Learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of this long pending suit as expeditiously as possible, without allowing any unnecessary adjournment application whatsoever. 13. With the aforesaid observation, this revisional application is disposed of. 14. Parties are at liberty to intimate this order to the learned Trial Court forthwith for necessary information. 5 15. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)