However strong a person’s right to recovery maybe, he cannot file an intervention application in an already disposed of matter and stay the execution of the decree or nullify the decree without proper judicial recourse

In the matter of Rajesh Saichand Sharma vs. Subhash Chandra Saichand Sharma (IA No. 11624/2021 in Suit No. 2700/2011) decided on 11.06.2021 by the Bombay High Court.

FACTS: Petitioner and Subhash Chandra Saichand Sharma were brothers but got estranged. Initially, Petitioner filed the suit for specific performance against the defendant. He pleaded that he contracted with Defendant (Sudarshan) to buy a flat and paid a part of the sale consideration. According to him, though he was willing to pay the balance sale consideration and have a regular deed of conveyance in his favour, defendant did not come forward to perform his part of the contract. With that cause of action, Petitioner filed a suit before this Court for specific performance. Incidentally, Subhash, his brother, was his power of attorney agent in the suit. But the said POA was later revoked in the year 2017. The suit got decreed in favor of the Petitioner and that Sudarshan was to pay Rs.61 lakhs to Petitioner. However, that amount had been deposited when the suit was pending. As a matter of further development, on 12.05.2021, in the present disposed of suit, Subhash filed the present intervention application pleading that he contributed a part of the consideration for the contract and, therefore, he is entitled to a proportionate decretal amount.

ISSUE: Whether the intervening application filed by the brother of the Petitioner namely, Subash is maintainable or not

HELD: The Bombay High Court looking into the unique facts of this case, observed that that courts often hold that procedural laws are handmaid of justice. The function of adjective law is to facilitate justice and further its ends and the rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. Therefore, they must be construed liberally and in such a manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. A ‘hypertechnical view’ should not be adopted by the court in interpreting procedural laws. The Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, must be interpreted in a manner to subserve and advance the cause of justice.

The High Court though did not take a hyper technical view in the present case, even then could not come to the aid of the Applicant/ Subash as there was no lis between the parties and in case, Subhash wanted to revive the disposed off suit, the decree must have to be set aside. The Court questioned whether on an intervening application can a decree be set aside when Order 9 Rule 13 CPC speaks of setting aside of a decree. Further, the court observed that the next permissible method for having a decree set aside is review under Order 47, read with Section 114, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor can this Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC once the party has a specific provision in the Code to meet his needs. Subhash to reach his judicial destination have to file a separate suit, seeking a declaration.

Secondly, the Court observed that the present suit is in fact a contractual dispute. And that dispute concerns the parties to the contract. In a suit for specific performance, whatever be its outcome, no third party can have the role to play. In E. Ajay Kumar v. Smt Tulsabai, the Bombay High Court while posing itself of the question that can it really be said that the stranger to an agreement is concerned with the relief sought by the plaintiff or the defences raised against such specific performance? In answer, it was held that, first, the stranger not being a party to the suit, any decision in that suit does not affect him. Therefore, he suffers no prejudice. Second, the Court was being called upon to enforce the agreement but not to settle any disputes between the plaintiff and the stranger. So, the presence of such a person is not necessary for the Court to decide the controversy in the suit. Further, According to Prem Sukh Gulgulia, this is on the principle that the scope of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale ought not to be enlarged and turned into a title suit between one of the parties to the contract and a stranger.

Dealing with the case in hand, the Bombay High Court held that if Subhash had contributed to the sale consideration at Rajesh’s behest, he would have his claim against Rajesh intact, subject to limitation though. On the contrary, if he has contributed directly to Sudarshan and wanted him to treat both the brothers as co-purchasers, Subhash may have his remedy against Sudarshan open. Thus, the suit between Rajesh and Sudarshan does not affect him. Thus, the application was dismissed and disposed off.