LAW FOR ALL

Objection to withdrawal of a suit by impleader /defendant No.4- not maintainable in view of the facts = "5. The grievance of the Appellant is that the aforesaid amount ought not to have been allowed to have been withdrawn since the Appellant has filed a separate suit for specific performance of its agreement, against the Respondents and others. Now, in so far as the Appellant is concerned, the Appellant must necessarily pursue its claim in that suit. A motion has been taken out by the Appellant in its suit which is still pending before the Learned Trial Judge. As regards the suit out of which the present appeal arises, that was for specific performance of the agreement between the First Respondent and the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents. Whether the suit should be pursued or should be unconditionally withdrawn was a matter for the First Respondent- Plaintiff to determine since it is the First Respondent who is in carriage of these proceedings. Upon the withdrawal of that suit, an order had to be passed in regard to the monies which were deposited in pursuance of the interim direction. The Appellant could have no objection whatsoever if the monies were directed to be refunded back to the First Respondent who had deposited the money. It would make no difference to the legal position if the monies are directed to be paid over to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in terms of the agreement between the First Respondent and the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents. The Appellant which has instituted its own independent suit would be at liberty to pursue its suit to a logical conclusion. The agreement between the First Respondent and the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents does not preclude the Appellant from pursing its own remedies in respect of the agreement which the Appellant claims and in respect of which a separate suit is pending."- We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. In our opinion, the petitioner's challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge was wholly misconceived and the Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that it cannot have any legitimate objection to the disposal of the suit in terms of the agreement reached between respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 because it had already instituted independent suit. The reasons recorded by the Division Bench for declining to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge are correct and the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order shall not prejudicially affect adjudication of Suit No.2691/1998.