ABDUL RAUF vs SANAULLAH and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed in limine the petitioner's Civil Revision. The underlying dispute arose from the petitioner's application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to be impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner claimed an interest in the disputed property based on a 1984 registered sale-deed, asserting that he purchased land under specific Khewat and Khatuni numbers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner demonstrated a sufficient legal interest in the property to warrant impleadment as a necessary or proper party. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to establish any nexus between the Khewat number mentioned in his sale-deed and the Khewat number of the disputed land, noting discrepancies across different record of rights. Finding no illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment, the Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of interest. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that impleadment requires a clear, demonstrable legal interest in the subject matter of the suit.
- Does a party seeking impleadment under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bear the burden of proving a clear nexus between their title and the disputed property?
- Is a petitioner entitled to impleadment in a suit for specific performance if they fail to reconcile discrepancies in land record numbers?
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 21-5-2003 whereby Civil Revision No,836 of 2003, filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Seeking his impleadment as a party in a suit for specific performance titled as "Sanaullah v. Rashid Ahmed and others". It was his case that he purchased land measuring 4 Marlas out of the disputed property through a registered sale-deed on 4-1-1984, on the basis of record of rights pertaining to the years 1966-1967 wherein the number of the property was given as Khewat No,18, Khatuni Nos. 69 to 70.
However, according to the learned counsel these numbers were changed subsequently.
3. Wehave considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that subsequent to the record of rights pertaining to the years 1966-1967 different Khewat Numbers had been given in the record of rights pertaining to the year, 1966-67, 198081 and 1984-85. We fail to understand how the petitioner in the years 1984-85 claimed any right in Khewat No,36 Khatuni Nos. 190-191 when in fact the purchased land was in Khewat No,18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that Khewat No,18 of his sale-deed had any nexus with Khewat No,36 of the disputed land. He has also failed to point out any illegality, misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
4. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.