MANU/SC/0977/2019 / Equivalent Citation: wish and more particularly with respect to a person

2019(204)AIC235, AIR2019SC3577, 2019(5)ALD166, 2019 against whom no relief has been claimed by him?
(137) ALR 744, (2019)IIICALLT78(SC),
(2019)4CALLT18(SC), 2019 (3) CCC 569 , 128(2019)CLT461, The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and
2019(II)CLR(SC)647, 2019(II)ILR-CUT449, Justice MR Shah noted that in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal,
2019(3)J.L.J.R.418, 2019(5)JKJ307[SC], 2020-4-LW492, the Apex Court had held that the question of jurisdiction
2019(II)OLR319, 2019(3)PLJR402, 2019(3)RCR(Civil)809, of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add a party
2020 146 RD578, 2020(1)RLW66(SC), 2019(10)SCALE49, who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall
(2020)13SCC773, 2019 (3) WLN 56 (SC)] not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct
and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was further held that, two tests are to be satisfied for
Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-5523 of 2019 determining the question who is a necessary party.
Decided On: 17.07.2019
Further: It is further observed and held that a third party
Appellants: Gurmit Singh Bhatia
or a stranger cannot be added in a suit for specific
Vs.
performance, merely in order to find out who is in
Respondent: Kiran Kant Robinson and Ors.
possession of the contracted property or to avoid
multiplicity of the suits.
Dominus litis: / Order 1 Rule 10
A third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be
The Plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against added so as to convert a suit of one character into a
whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that suit of different character.
case, it will be at the risk of the Plaintiffs. … page 5..
It is further observed and held by this Court in the
It is further observed and held by this Court that two tests
aforesaid decision that if the Plaintiff who has filed a
are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a
suit for specific performance of the contract to sell,
necessary party.
even after receiving the notice of claim of title and
possession by other persons (not parties to the suit and
TEST: The tests are-(1) there must be a right to some even not parties to the agreement to sell for which a
relief against such party in respect of the controversies decree for specific performance is sought) does not
involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be want to join them in the pending suit, it is always done
passed in the absence of such party. at the risk of the Plaintiff because he cannot be forced
to join the third parties as party-Defendants in such
"Position will be different when the plaintiff submits an suit.
application to implead the subsequent purchaser as a
party and when the plaintiff opposes such an application The aforesaid observations are made by this Court
for impleadment." considering the principle that Plaintiff is the dominus
litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom
The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a suit, the he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion
plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add of the Rule of law. .. page 6
parties against whom he does not want to fight unless
there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

In a suit filed for specific performance, purchaser who Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R.
purchased the suit property during the pendency of the Shah, JJ.
suit filed an application in the pending suit under Order 1
Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment as a defendant in the Counsels:
suit. The case of the applicant was that he has purchased For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr.
the suit property and is a necessary and proper party to the Adv., P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Raj
suit as he has a direct interest in the suit property. Though Lakshmi Singh, Kaustab Singh and Shruti Jose, Advs.
the Trial Court allowed the application, the Chhattisgarh For Respondents/Defendant: M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh,
High Court set aside the said order of the Trial Court. Gautam Prabhakar, Mojahid Karim Khan and Kunal Verma,
Advs.
The issue raised in the appeal [Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs.
Kiran Kant Robinson] before the Apex Court was Case Category: ORDINARY CIVIL MATTER - MATTERS
whether the plaintiffs can be compelled to implead a RELATING TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
person in the suit for specific performance, against his
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
October 26, 2021 Page | 1
Case Note: Civil - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of It is an admitted position that so far as agreement to sell
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Appeal was against impugned dated 3.5.2005 of which the specific performance is sought,
judgment passed by High Court, by which High Court had the Appellant is not a party to the said agreement to sell.
allowed writ petition preferred by original Plaintiffs and had
quashed and set aside order passed by trial Court allowing It appears that, during the pendency of the aforesaid suit
application preferred by Appellant for impleading him as a and though there was an injunction against the original
necessary party – owner-vendor restraining him from transferring and
alienating the suit property, the vendor executed the sale
Whether Plaintiffs could be compelled to implead a person deed in favour of the Appellant by sale deed dated
in suit for specific performance, against his wish and more 10.07.2008.
particularly with respect to a person against whom no relief
had been claimed by him. After a period of approximately four years, the Appellant
filed an application before the learned trial Court under
Facts: Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein-the original Plaintiffs Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for his impleadment as a
filed a suit against Respondent No. 1 herein-original Defendant.
Defendant No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement
to sell/contract executed by Respondent No. 1-original The Appellant claimed the right on the basis of the said sale
Defendant No. 1 in the Court of learned 4th Additional deed as well as the agreement to sell dated 31.3.2003 alleged
District Judge. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit to have been executed by the original vendor. The said
and despite the injunction against Respondent No. 1 herein- application was opposed by the original Plaintiffs.
original Defendant No. 1-original owner not to alienate or
transfer the suit property, Respondent No. 1 herein-original
Defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of the
Appellant herein vide sale deed. The Appellant herein-
purchaser who purchased the suit property during the The learned trial Court despite the opposition by the
pendency of the suit filed an application in the pending suit original Plaintiffs allowed the said application which has
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment as a been set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment
Defendant in the suit. and order.

It was the case on behalf of the Appellant that he has Thus, it was an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the
purchased the suit property and is a necessary and proper CPC by a third party to the agreement to sell between the
party to the suit as he has a direct interest in the suit original Plaintiffs and original Defendant No. 1 (vendor) and
property. the said application for impleadment is/was opposed by the
original Plaintiffs. [5.1]
By an order, the learned trial Court allowed the said
application and directed the original Plaintiffs to join the 2 An identical question came to be considered before this
Appellant as a Defendant in the suit. Feeling aggrieved and Court in the case of Kasturi and applying the principle that
dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court the Plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar facts and
allowing the application and permitting the Appellant herein circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held that
to be joined as a party Defendant in the suit filed by the the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1
original Plaintiffs-Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, Rule 10 of CPC to add a party who is not made a party in
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein filed writ petition before the the suit by the Plaintiff shall not arise unless a party
High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the
allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside controversy involved in the suit.
the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the
impleadment application preferred by the Appellant herein It is further observed and held by this Court that two tests
by holding that as regards the relief claimed against the are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a
original Defendants and as no relief has been claimed necessary party.
against the Appellant herein, the Appellant cannot be said to
be a necessary or formal party. TEST: The tests are-(1) there must be a right to some relief
against such party in respect of the controversies involved in
Held, while dismissing the appeal 1. The original Plaintiffs the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the
filed the suit against the original owner-vendor-original absence of such party. It is further observed and held that in
Defendant No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement a suit for specific performance the first test can be
to sell with respect to suit property dated 3.5.2005. formulated is, to determine whether a party is a necessary
party there must be a right to the same relief against the
party claiming to be a necessary party, relating to the same

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

October 26, 2021 Page | 2
subject matter involved in the proceedings for specific 1 in the Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.
performance of contract to sell. That during the pendency of the aforesaid suit and despite the
injunction against Respondent No. 1 herein-original Defendant
It is further observed and held by this Court that in a suit No. 1-original owner not to alienate or transfer the suit property,
for specific performance of the contract, a proper party is a Respondent No. 1 herein-original Defendant No. 1 executed a
party whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the sale deed in favour of the Appellant herein vide sale deed dated
controversy involved in the suit. It is further observed and 10.07.2008. The Appellant herein-purchaser who purchased the
held that the parties claiming an independent title and suit property during the pendency of the suit filed an application
possession adverse to the title of the vendor and not on the in the pending suit Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
basis of the contract, are not proper parties and if such Procedure for impleadment as a Defendant in the suit. It was the
party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for case on behalf of the Appellant herein that he has purchased the
specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title and suit property and is a necessary and proper party to the suit as he
possession, which is impermissible. has a direct interest in the suit property. That by an order dated
5.11.2012, the learned trial Court allowed the said application
and directed the original Plaintiffs to join the Appellant as a
It is further observed and held that a third party or a
Defendant in the suit.
stranger cannot be added in a suit for specific performance,
merely in order to find out who is in possession of the
contracted property or to avoid multiplicity of the suits. A 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added so as the learned trial Court dated 5.11.2012 allowing the application
to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different and permitting the Appellant herein to be joined as a party
character. [5.2] Defendant in the suit filed by the original Plaintiffs-Respondent
Nos. 2 & 3 herein, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein filed writ
petition No. 856/2012 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
3. Present Court is in complete agreement with the view
By the impugned judgment and order dated 3.7.2013, the High
taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set
called for. The Appellant cannot be impleaded as a
aside the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the
Defendant in the suit for specific performance of the
impleadment application preferred by the Appellant herein by
contract between the original Plaintiffs and original
holding that as regards the relief claimed against the original
Defendant No. 1 against the wish of the Plaintiffs. Appeals
Defendants and as no relief has been claimed against the
dismissed. [7]
Appellant herein, the Appellant cannot be said to be a necessary
or formal party. That thereafter the Appellant preferred a review
Ratio Decidendi: A third party or a stranger to a contract application which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present
cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a appeals by way of special leave petitions.
suit of different character..
3. Shri Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned Senior Advocate has
JUDGMENT appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Shri M. Shoeb Alam,
learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original
M.R. Shah, J. Plaintiffs.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned 3.1. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
judgment and order dated 3.7.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. Appellant has vehemently submitted that once the learned trial
856/2012 and order dated 5.8.2013 passed in Review Petition Court allowed the impleadment application submitted by the
No. 169/2013 in Writ Petition No. 856/2012 by the High Court Appellant herein Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by which the High Court has Procedure holding that the Appellant is a necessary and proper
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original Plaintiffs party, the High Court, in exercise of powers Under Article 227
and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned of the Constitution of India, ought not to have interfered with
trial Court allowing the application preferred by the Appellant the same.
herein for impleading him as a necessary party to the suit filed
by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein-the original Plaintiffs, the 3.2. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate
original applicant-Appellant has preferred the present appeals. appearing on behalf of the Appellant that as such the Appellant
has purchased the suit property from the same vendor and, in
2. The facts of the case leading to these appeals in nutshell are fact, the Appellant was prior agreement to sell holder and to
as follows: protect the interest of the Appellant the Appellant is a necessary
and proper party. It is submitted that therefore the learned trial
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein-the original Plaintiffs filed a suit Court rightly allowed the impleadment application submitted by
against Respondent No. 1 herein-original Defendant No. 1 for the Appellant.
specific performance of the agreement to sell/contract dated
3.5.2005 executed by Respondent No. 1-original Defendant No.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
October 26, 2021 Page | 3
3.3. Making the above submissions and relying upon the 4.3. Making the above submissions and relying upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel v. decision of this Court in the case of Kasturi (supra), it is prayed
Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar, reported in to dismiss the present appeals.
MANU/SC/1650/2016 : (2018) 15 SCC 614 and the decision of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Swastik Developers 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties
v. Saket Kumar Jain, reported in MANU/MH/1108/2013 : 2014 at length.
(2) Mh.L.J. 968, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and
quash and set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed
5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original
by the High Court and restore the order passed by the learned
Plaintiffs filed the suit against the original owner-vendor-
trial Court.
original Defendant No. 1 for specific performance of the
agreement to sell with respect to suit property dated 3.5.2005. It
4. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri M. is an admitted position that so far as agreement to sell dated
Shoeb Alam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the 3.5.2005 of which the specific performance is sought, the
original Plaintiffs. It is vehemently submitted that in fact the Appellant is not a party to the said agreement to sell. It appears
Appellant purchased the suit property during the pendency of that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit and though there
the suit and that too in violation of the injunction granted by the was an injunction against the original owner-vendor restraining
learned trial Court. It is submitted that as such the prior him from transferring and alienating the suit property, the
agreement to sell upon which reliance has been placed by the vendor executed the sale deed in favour of the Appellant by sale
Appellant is a concocted and forged one. It is submitted that in deed dated 10.07.2008. After a period of approximately four
any case the Appellant cannot be impleaded as a Defendant in a years, the Appellant filed an application before the learned trial
suit filed by the original Plaintiffs for specific performance of Court Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
the agreement to sell/contract to which the Appellant is not a his impleadment as a Defendant. The Appellant claimed the
party. It is submitted that the original Plaintiffs are the dominus right on the basis of the said sale deed as well as the agreement
litis and without their consent nobody can be permitted to be to sell dated 31.3.2003 alleged to have been executed by the
impleaded as Defendant. original vendor. The said application was opposed by the
original Plaintiffs. The learned trial Court despite the opposition
4.1. It is vehemently submitted that as such the issue involved in by the original Plaintiffs allowed the said application which has
the present case is squarely covered against the Appellant in been set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment and
view of the decision of this Court in the case of Kasturi v. order. Thus, it was an application Under Order 1 Rule 10 of the
Iyyamperumal, reported in MANU/SC/0319/2005 : (2005) 6 Code of Civil Procedure by a third party to the agreement to sell
SCC 733. between the original Plaintiffs and original Defendant No. 1
(vendor) and the said application for impleadment is/was
4.2. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of this opposed by the original Plaintiffs. Therefore, the short question
Court in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel (supra) as well as which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether
the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shri the Plaintiffs can be compelled to implead a person in the suit
Swastik Developers (supra) by the learned Senior Advocate for specific performance, against his wish and more particularly
appearing on behalf of the Appellant, it is vehemently submitted with respect to a person against whom no relief has been
by Shri M. Shoeb Alam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf claimed by him?
of the original Plaintiffs that the said decisions shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that in 5.2 An identical question came to be considered before this
the aforesaid two cases, it was an application by the original Court in the case of Kasturi (supra) and applying the principle
Plaintiff to implead the subsequent purchaser who purchased the that the Plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar facts and
property during the pendency of the suits. It is submitted that as circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held that the
held by this Court in the case of Kasturi (supra), it is for the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10
Plaintiff/Plaintiffs to implead a particular person/persons as Code of Civil Procedure to add a party who is not made a party
Defendant/Defendants and if he/they does not/do not join then it in the suit by the Plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed
will be at the risk of the Plaintiff/Plaintiffs. It is further to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy
submitted that the Plaintiff cannot be forced to implead any involved in the suit. It is further observed and held by this Court
other person, more particularly who is not a party to the that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question
contract, against the wish of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that who is a necessary party.
therefore the aforesaid two decisions, upon which reliance has
been placed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf The tests are-(1) there must be a right to some relief against such
of the Appellant, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings;
on hand. It is submitted that as such the decision of this Court in (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such
the case of Kasturi (supra) clinches the issue and shall be party.
squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
It is further observed and held that in a suit for specific
performance the first test can be formulated is, to determine
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
October 26, 2021 Page | 4
whether a party is a necessary party there must be a right to the Respondents 2 and 3 and in favour of the Appellant for specific
same relief against the party claiming to be a necessary party, performance of the contract for sale in respect of the contracted
relating to the same subject matter involved in the proceedings property, the decree that would be passed in the said suit,
for specific performance of contract to sell. It is further observed obviously, cannot bind Respondents 1 and 4 to 11. It may also
and held by this Court that in a suit for specific performance of be observed that in the event, the Appellant obtains a decree for
the contract, a proper party is a party whose presence is specific performance of the contracted property against
necessary to adjudicate the controversy involved in the suit. It is Respondents 2 and 3, then, the Court shall direct execution of
further observed and held that the parties claiming an deed of sale in favour of the Appellant in the event Respondents
independent title and possession adverse to the title of the 2 and 3 refusing to execute the deed of sale and to obtain
vendor and not on the basis of the contract, are not proper possession of the contracted property he has to put the decree in
parties and if such party is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the execution. As noted hereinearlier, since Respondents 1 and 4 to
suit for specific performance shall be enlarged to a suit for title 11 were not parties in the suit for specific performance of a
and possession, which is impermissible. It is further observed contract for sale of the contracted property, a decree passed in
and held that a third party or a stranger cannot be added in such a suit shall not bind them and in that case, Respondents 1
a suit for specific performance, merely in order to find out and 4 to 11 would be at liberty either to obstruct execution in
who is in possession of the contracted property or to avoid order to protect their possession by taking recourse to the
multiplicity of the suits. relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, if they are
available to them, or to file an independent suit for declaration
It is further observed and held by this Court that a third party or of title and possession against the Appellant or Respondent 3.
a stranger to a contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of On the other hand, if the decree is passed in favour of the
one character into a suit of different character. In paragraphs 15 Appellant and sale deed is executed, the stranger to the contract
and 16, this Court observed and held as under: being Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 have to be sued for taking
possession if they are in possession of the decretal property.
15. As discussed hereinearlier, whether Respondents 1 and 4 to
11 were proper parties or not, the governing principle for 16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in
deciding the question would be that the presence of Respondents Sub-rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure "all the
1 and 4 to 11 before the court would be necessary to enable it questions involved in the suit" it is abundantly clear that the
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between
questions involved in the suit. As noted hereinearlier, in a suit the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say,
for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the
decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the
the Appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 and whether contract controversies which may arise between the Plaintiff-Appellant
was executed by the Appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 for sale and the Defendants inter se or questions between the parties to
of the contracted property, whether the Plaintiffs were ready and the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the court cannot
willing to perform their part of the contract and whether the allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for
Appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit
contract for sale against Respondents 2 and 3. It is an admitted for title between the Plaintiff-Appellant on one hand and
position that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 did not seek their Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the
addition in the suit on the strength of the contract in respect of other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated
which the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions
has been filed. Admittedly, they based their claim on which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be
independent title and possession of the contracted property. It is, gone into. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the
therefore, obvious as noted hereinearlier that in the event, contract for sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title
Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are added or impleaded in the suit, and interest of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the
the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract for contracted property and in view of the detailed discussion made
sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific performance to a hereinearlier, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be
suit for title and possession which is not permissible in law. In necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific performance
the case of Vijay Pratap v. Sambhu Saran Sinha of the contract for sale.
[MANU/SC/0698/1996 : (1996) 10 SCC 53] this Court had
taken the same view which is being taken by us in this judgment That thereafter, after observing and holding as above, this Court
as discussed above. This Court in that decision clearly held that further observed that in view of the principle that the Plaintiff
to decide the right, title and interest in the suit property of the who has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to
stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the suit for sell is the dominus litis, he cannot be forced to add parties
specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be against whom, he does not want to fight unless it is a
turned into a regular title suit. Therefore, in our view, a third compulsion of the Rule of law. In the aforesaid decision in the
party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to case of Kasturi (supra), it was contended on behalf of the third
convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. parties that they are in possession of the suit property on the
As discussed above, in the event any decree is passed against basis of their independent title to the same and as the Plaintiff
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
October 26, 2021 Page | 5
had also claimed the relief of possession in the plaint and the when the Plaintiff submits an application to implead the
issue with regard to possession is common to the parties subsequent purchaser as a party and when the Plaintiff opposes
including the third parties, and therefore, the same can be settled such an application for impleadment. This is the distinguishing
in the suit itself. It was further submitted on behalf of the third feature in the aforesaid two decisions and in the decision of this
parties that to avoid the multiplicity of the suits, it would be Court in the case of Kasturi (supra).
appropriate to join them as party Defendants. This Court did not
accept the aforesaid submission by observing that merely in 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are
order to find out who is in possession of the contracted property, in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added in a No interference of this Court is called for. The Appellant cannot
suit for specific performance of the contract to sell because they be impleaded as a Defendant in the suit for specific performance
are not necessary parties as there was no semblance of right to of the contract between the original Plaintiffs and original
some relief against the party to the contract. Defendant No. 1 against the wish of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly,
the present appeals stand dismissed. However, in the facts and
It is further observed and held that in a suit for specific circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
performance of the contract to sell the lis between the vendor
and the persons in whose favour agreement to sell is executed © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
shall only be gone into and it is also not open to the Court to
decide whether any other parties have acquired any title and
possession of the contracted property.

It is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid

decision that if the Plaintiff who has filed a suit for specific
performance of the contract to sell, even after receiving the
notice of claim of title and possession by other persons (not
parties to the suit and even not parties to the agreement to
sell for which a decree for specific performance is sought)
does not want to join them in the pending suit, it is always
done at the risk of the Plaintiff because he cannot be forced
to join the third parties as party-Defendants in such suit.

The aforesaid observations are made by this Court

considering the principle that Plaintiff is the dominus litis
and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does
not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the Rule of
law.

Therefore, considering the decision of this Court in the case of

Kasturi (supra), the Appellant cannot be impleaded as a
Defendant in the suit filed by the original Plaintiffs for specific
performance of the contract between the original Plaintiffs and
original Defendant No. 1 and in a suit for specific performance
of the contract to which the Appellant is not a party and that too
against the wish of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he

does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at
the risk of the Plaintiffs.

6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this

Court in the case of Robin Ramjibhai Patel (supra) and the
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Swastik
Developers (supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate
for the Appellant is concerned, the aforesaid decisions shall not
be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in both the
aforesaid cases, it was the Plaintiff who submitted an application
to implead the third parties/subsequent purchasers who claimed
title under the vendor of the Plaintiff. Position will be different

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

October 26, 2021 Page | 6