THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5550 of 2010 Dated:29.12.2010 Between: K.Narasimha Moorthy. …Petitioner and P.Venkataswamy Reddy, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5550 of 2010 ORDER: The first respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) filed the suit, being O.S.No.113 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler, against respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein (hereafter called, the defendants). The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 27.11.1997. The petitioner is a third party to the suit. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.976 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to implead the petitioner and another as defendant Nos.6 and 7 and also insert sub para 4(a) after para 4 in the plaint containing the requisite allegations against the petitioner and another who were sought to be impleaded. The petitioner opposed. By impugned order, dated 16.09.2010, the Court below allowed the application adding the petitioner and another as defendant Nos.6 and 7. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants filed written statement on 11.08.2003 alleging that the suit schedule property was already sold to the petitioner. The plaintiff all along kept quiet and chose to file the application to implead belatedly when the property was already sold to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 02.01.1998. Therefore, he would urge that the application is barred by limitation. In the application to implead and amend the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that so as to defeat his legitimate claims, defendants brought into existence a sham and fictitious sale in favour of the petitioner and another though the agreement of sale dated 06.07.1997 is in force. This weighed with the Court below in granting the relief to the plaintiff. This Court fails to notice any error, much less, grave error apparent on the face of the record. It is settled law that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property, all the parties interested over the property including the subsequent purchasers with or without notice of prior sale are necessary parties. In case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, and the petitioner is not impleaded as a party, the very purpose of obtaining the decree would be defeated. This view is well supported by Kasturi v Iyyamperumal[1]. Therein a Division Bench of the Supreme Court laid down as under. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. In view of the above to resolve all the issues that would arise in the case, the petitioner is certainly a necessary party. The question of limitation does not arise. Needless to mention that to resolve “all questions involved in the suit” at any time in the course of the suit, the Court can implead all interested parties either as necessary parties or proper parties. In this case, the lower Court has done precisely the same. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .12.2010 vs [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733