1 CGHC010107552026 2026:CGHC:28062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 360 of 2026 1 - Narendra Parakh S/o Late Panchilal Parakh Aged About 66 Years Proprietor Of M/s Rocky Sons Enterprises, R/o D-Quad, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 (Original Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashok Sahu S/o Late Jethuram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Brahmdev Temple, Sahupara, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492009 (Original Defendant No. 1) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Original Defendant No. 2) 3 - Wahiduddin S/o Kutubuddin Aged About 44 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Moudhapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 (Proposed Party/ Applicant Before Trial Court) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, PL For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 07/07/2026 The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 188-A/2023, whereby the application preferred by respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and respondent No.3 has been directed to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit instituted by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance of contract instituted against respondent No.1 on the strength of an agreement to sale dated 11.11.2020. It is contended that respondent No.1 had agreed to sell the land bearing Khasra No.1506/1, admeasuring 0.888 hectare, situated at Village Gudiyari, Tahsil and District Raipur, for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Since respondent No.1 failed to execute the sale deed despite the agreement, the petitioner was constrained to institute the suit seeking specific performance. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, respondent No.3 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC on 28.11.2023, with the averment that he had independently entered into an agreement to purchase the very same property from respondent No.1 on 18.05.2022 and had paid 3 an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, and was delivered possession of the property in part performance of the said agreement. On the basis of the aforesaid claim, respondent No.3 sought impleadment as a necessary party to the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit is founded exclusively upon the agreement dated 11.11.2020 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Respondent No.3, whose claim arises out of a subsequent and independent agreement, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. If respondent No.3 claims any independent right over the property, it is always open to him to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with law; however, he cannot compel the plaintiff to litigate against a person against whom no relief has been claimed. It is further submitted that the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, is entitled to choose the persons against whom he seeks relief, and the trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in directing impleadment of respondent No.3. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supports the impugned order and submits that subsequent to the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 executed another agreement in favour of respondent No.3 on 18.05.2022 and after receiving an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, delivered possession of the subject property. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has acquired a substantial interest in the property and 4 any decree passed in his absence would seriously prejudice his rights. The learned trial Court, therefore, rightly exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The facts in the present case are not in dipsute. It is also not in dispute that the suit instituted by the petitioner is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.11.2020 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Equally undisputed is the fact that respondent No.3 predicates his claim on an altogether independent agreement dated 18.05.2022. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P/2) reveals that no relief has been claimed against respondent No.3, nor has any cause of action been pleaded against him. The controversy in the suit is confined to the contractual rights and obligations arising out of the agreement dated 11.11.2020 between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 7. If respondent No.3 claims any independent right, title or interest in the subject property by virtue of the subsequent agreement, his remedy lies in pursuing independent proceedings available under law. Such an independent claim cannot enlarge the scope of the present suit or justify his impleadment therein, particularly when the adjudication of the issues involved between the existing parties can be effectively undertaken in his absence. In the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs 5 Kiran Kant Robinson, CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5522-5523 OF 2019, decided on 17.07.2019, the Apex Court has held that, “A person claiming an independent right or title over the suit property is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for specific performance, and his remedy is to institute separate proceedings and not to seek impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC.” 8. In view of the settled principles governing Order I Rule 10 CPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 and directing his impleadment as a defendant. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 is hereby set aside, and the application preferred by respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P/6) stands rejected. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is, however, made clear that respondent No.3 shall be at liberty to avail such independent remedy as may be permissible in law for enforcement of his alleged rights, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.09 16:41:51 +0530