Summary
A purchaser who acquired the property during a pending specific-performance suit despite an injunction was denied impleadment against the plaintiffs’ opposition. He was not a party to the contract sued upon and sought to introduce his separate claim. Applying Kasturi, the Court held that the plaintiffs could not be compelled on these facts to add him, distinguishing cases where plaintiffs themselves sought joinder of subsequent purchasers.
Issues
- Whether this purchaser could compel his addition to the specific-performance suit against the plaintiffs’ wishes.
Held
- Necessary-party status required a right to relief against the proposed party in the controversy and inability to pass an effective decree without that party. Joinder could not merely enlarge a contract-enforcement suit into a collateral title dispute or serve convenience and multiplicity concerns. (¶ 5.2)
- The appellant was not party to the contract sued upon, purchased during the suit despite restraint on alienation, and applied for joinder about four years later. Applying the plaintiff’s control of the action subject to legal necessity, compulsory addition was unwarranted here. (¶¶ 5.1–5.2, 7)
- Precedents allowing addition at a plaintiff’s request were distinguishable from the third party’s opposed application. A plaintiff declining joinder acted at his own risk. (¶¶ 5.2, 6)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; High Court order rejecting the purchaser’s impleadment maintained.