THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6327 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 23-11-2009, in I.A.No.415 of 2008 in O.S.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) seeking permission to implead respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/proposed parties as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the Original Suit and permit them to contest the Original Suit, was allowed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be stated as follows: Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the trial Court filed a suit basing on an agreement of sale, dated 22.10.2007, against respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in respect of the suit schedule property mentioned therein. When the suit was pending, the petitioners, who claim to be the daughters of respondent No.2/defendant No.1, filed the present petition to implead them as party defendants in the suit, as they have got semblance of right in the suit schedule property, which according to them is a joint family property, and by virtue of amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they are also entitled to a share in the suit schedule property, since the property was not divided by metes and bounds. That petition was allowed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that in a suit for specific performance, third parties to the contract are not necessary parties in view of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”); that the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company[1], has not been considered and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/proposed parties contended that since respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have got a share in the suit schedule property, which was allegedly sold under agreement of sale to the petitioner/plaintiff by their father i.e., respondent No.3/defendant No.1, and the daughters have some semblance of right over the property of their father, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit; that the trial Court after considering the material on record rightly allowed the petition; that to substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on a decision this Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[2] and also on a decision of this Court in Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni[3]. 6. Inherent powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in jurisdiction, so as to see that whether the Courts are acting within the parameters prescribed under the law and also within the bounds. If the findings are contrary to law or illegal findings are given, then it can be a ground to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. There cannot be any dispute that a party, which has got some semblance of right over the property in dispute, can come on record under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., which reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” Therefore, the above provision can be invoked by the defendant or plaintiff, as the case may be, in order to bring on record a third party to suit to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, two requirements are to be satisfied for determining the question as to whether who is a necessary party viz., (1) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversy involved in the proceedings and (2) No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. Section 19 of the Act is exhaustive on the question as to who are the parties against whom the contract of specific performance can be enforced. For deciding the question whether who is a proper party in the suit for specific performance, the guiding principle is that presence of such party is necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. 8. There is a distinction between proper party and necessary party. A proper party is a party where an effective decree cannot be passed in his absence in the case. In the case of necessary party, he must show some semblance of right in the property. Then only he can come on record. 9. In a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal[4], it is held thus: “In the case of Vijay Pratap and others v. Sambhu Saran Sinha and others ((1996) 10 SCC 53), this Court had taken the same view which is being taken by us in this judgment as discussed above. This Court in that decision clearly held that to decided the right, title and interest in the suit property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be turned into a regular title suit. Therefore, in our view, a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character.” It is further held thus: “In our view, therefore, the Court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff/appellant on one hand and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into.” This is a case where the proposed parties are claiming title and possession of the contracted property. In the above decision it is clearly held that a stranger to the contract cannot be brought on record and the same is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance. 10. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar’s case (1 supra), it is held thus: “Along with that is the other question, which very often raises its head in suits for specific performance, that is, whether a stranger to an agreement for sale can be added as a party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in view of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The relevant provision of Section 15 with which we are concerned is contained in clause (a) thereof and entitles any party to the contract to seek specific performance of such contract. Admittedly, the appellant herein is a third party to the agreement and does not, therefore, fall within the category of “parties to the agreement”. The appellant also does not come within the ambit of Section 19 of the said Act, which provides for relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail in Kasturi Case. While holding that the scope of a suit for specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a suit for title and possession, their Lordships observed that a third party or a stranger to the contract could not be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of a different character.” This is also a case where the proposed parties, who are strangers to the contract, want to come on record. Therefore, the apex Court held that such a person, who does not fall within the category of “parties to the agreement”, could not be added. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the third parties to the contract. 11. But, in a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.’s case (2 supra), it is held thus: “Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order I of Rule 10 (2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The Court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The Court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the Court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the Court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. This Court in Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, 1981 (1) SCC 80 = AIR 1981 SC 2085, reiterated the classic definition of ‘discretion by Lord Mansfield in R.V. Wilkes, 1770 (98) ER 327, that ‘discretion’ when applied to Courts of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, ‘but legal and regular’. We may not give some illustrations regarding exercise of discretion under the said sub-rule.” There is no dispute about the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision. The above decision is not directly on the point i.e., whether the proposed party, who is a stranger to the contract, can come on record. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kasturi’s case (4 supra) as well as Bharat Karsondas Thakkar’s case (1 supra), respondent Nos.1 and 2/proposed parties, who are strangers to the contract, cannot come on record in a suit for specific performance, because the issue to be decided in the said suit is whether the petitioner/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and respondent Nos.3 to 5/defendant Nos.1 to 3 have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 come on record, the entire structure of the suit will be changed because the independent right of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the property is not resolved. It is only an allegation that they have got a share in the suit schedule property, which is under dispute. No doubt, they claim that they have got a right in the property, but that right has not been resolved by a competent Court. That has to be determined in a proper adjudicatory forum. Therefore, bringing respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit, is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kasturi’s case (4 Supra). Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 23-11-2009, in I.A.No.415 of 2008 in O.S.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, and leaving open all the remedies available to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 20, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6327 OF 2009 Between: C. Subramanyam Naidu .....PETITIONER AND C. Jayanthi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6327 OF 2009 October 20, 2010 [1] (2008) 13 SCC 658 [2] 2010 (5) ALD 24 (SC) [3] 2010 (4) ALT 790 [4] 2005 (4) SCJ 196