THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 1568 of 2010 Order: This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1271 of 2009 in O.S. No. 150 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the first respondent herein as third defendant in O.S. No. 150 of 2005, was allowed. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The revision petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 150 of 2005 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff’s case is that the first defendant namely Smt. Sharada Rana purchased the suit schedule property under two registered sale deeds dated 11.04.1990 to an extent of 1444 sq. yards each, totally admeasuring 2888 sq. yards, from the original owner of the property Smt. S. Padmavathi for valuable consideration. When the first defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same, and the first defendant, having received the advance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, executed an agreement of sale on 22.10.1993 in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for further advance of sale consideration. The first defendant is the managing partner of M/s. Rana Constructions and the second defendant is the Deputy General Manager and GPA holder of M/s. Rana Constructions and both of them executed separate receipts in token of receiving Rs.4,00,000/- as further advance of sale consideration in favour of the plaintiff on 24.11.1994 and that subsequently the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards further advance of sale consideration to them on 12.12.2006 and as there was enhancement of prices, the total sale consideration was re- fixed at Rs.43,32,000/- and again the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on different dates. Since the dispute arose between the parties for various reasons, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract seeking a direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed. During the pendency of the said suit, the first respondent herein, who is the third party to the suit, filed an application in I.A. No.1271 of 2009 in O.S. No.150 of 2005 to implead him as third defendant in the said suit contending, inter alia, that he is the sole proprietor of M/s. Rana Constructions, which is shown as second defendant in the suit. His main case is that the suit is a collusive one filed to grab the valuable property and the suit as filed for specific performance basing on a false agreement of sale is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. His main case is that originally M/s. Rana Constructions was floated by one Surjith Singh Rana in or about the year 1982-83, in which the first defendant Smt. Sharada Rana, who is no other than the daughter-in-law of said Surjith Singh Rana, was a partner in the said firm. The said firm had purchased an extent of 1444 sq. yards through its partner Smt. Sharada Rana under a registered sale deed dated 11.04.1990 and on the same day Smt. Sharada Rana also purchased an extent of 1444 sq. yards under a registered sale deed out of her own self acquisitions. Subsequently, in the year 1993, Smt. Sharada Rana expressed her inability to continue in the firm and opted to retire from the firm and on the request of Surjith Singh Rana, the petitioner joined as a partner in the firm. Accordingly, a deed of reconstitution of partnership was executed evidencing the retirement of Smt. Sharada Rana and the factum of petitioner joining the firm with effect from 01.04.1993. Thereafter, Mr. Surjith Singh Rana passed away at the age of 81 years on 02.12.1993. So, according to the petitioner, by operation of law the firm ceased and the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the same and he is carrying on the business of the defunct firm. The properties covered by the aforesaid sale deeds have been mortgaged in the State Bank of Indore, Baroda Branch in the year 1992. Subsequently, the Bank also initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.S. No. 57 of 2006 and the said case is still pending. His specific case is that no power of attorney was executed in favour of Mr. U.V.S. Giri, who is shown as GPA Holder of M/s. Rana Constructions Partnership Firm, the second defendant in the suit. It is also his case that taking advantage of the absence of the real owners in the suit land, the parties of the suit were colluded together and fabricated the documents by resorting to forgery and filed a collusive suit. If the petitioner is allowed to come on record, he would prove the fraud played by the plaintiff and the said UVS Giri. The lower Court, considering the contention of the petitioner, who claims to be the real owner of the property and seeks to come on record to unfold the alleged fraud, permitted the petitioner to come on record as a party to the suit for effective adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that since it is a suit for specific performance, a third party cannot be allowed to come on record. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein has submitted that the party, who has semblance of right, can come on record and that the Court below has rightly allowed the petition and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. He has relied on the decisions reported in Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni[1], Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co.[2] and Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd., v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd[3]. As seen from the above referred pleadings of the parties, the plaintiff in the suit claims to have entered into an agreement with the defendants for purchase of the suit schedule property. His main case is that the first defendant had purchased the suit schedule property totally admeasuring 2888 sq. yards, under two registered sale deeds, dated 11.04.1990, i.e., 1444 sq. yards under each sale deed. It is also his case that UVS Giri is the GPA holder of M/s. Rana Constructions and that the defendants 1 and 2 have executed receipts acknowledging the receipt of sale consideration on various dates. The specific case of the petitioner herein is that he is the sole proprietor of M/s. Rana Constructions i.e., the second defendant in the suit and that he had not executed any GPA in favour of UVS Giri. It is also his further case that the land to an extent of 1444 sq. yards was purchased in the name of the firm but not by Sharada Rana out of her self acquisitions. It is also his case that he joined in the firm as partner after Sharada Rana retired from the firm and that after the demise of Surjit Singh Rana, by operation of law, the firm ceased and he became the sole proprietor of the firm. Therefore, the important issues that may arise in the suit are whether the property was purchased by Sharada Rana in her individual capacity or whether the property was purchased by the firm and whether the petitioner became the sole proprietor of the firm after the demise of Surjith Singh Rana and whether U.V.S. Giri was appointed as GPA holder for M/s. Rana Constructions Partnership Firm. Admittedly, the plaintiff claims to have paid part of sale consideration to the second defendant i.e., M/s. Rana Constructions, of course represented by UVS Giri. In the circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has some interest in the dispute and it cannot be said that he has no semblance of interest in the suit schedule property. In case between Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. (2 supra), it was observed by the apex Court that if a party can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. In that case, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal ((2005) 6 SCC 733), was also explained. I n Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. (3 supra) it was observed as follows. “Referring to suits for specific performance, this Court in Kasturi held that the following persons are to be considered as necessary parties: (i) the parties to the contract which is sought to be enforced or their legal representatives; (ii) a transferee of the property which is the subject-matter of the contract. This Court also explained that a person who has a direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale may be impleaded as a proper party, on his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. This Court concluded that a purchaser of the suit property subsequent to the suit agreement would be a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased it with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims a title adverse to that of the defendant vendor will not be a necessary party. The first respondent contended that Kasturi held that a person claiming a title adverse to the title of defendant vendor, could not be impleaded, but the effect of Sumtibai would be that such a person could be impleaded; and that therefore, the decision in Sumtibai is contrary to the larger bench decision in Kasturi. On a careful consideration, we find that there is no conflict between the two decisions. The two decisions were dealing with different situations requiring application of different facets of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1. This is made clear in Sumtibai itself. It was observed that every judgment must be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found; that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision and that even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect; that there is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. The decisions in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1992 (2) SCC 524] and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [1995 (3) SCC 147] also explain in what circumstances persons may be added as parties.” This Court also considered the same issue in Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni (1 supra), wherein it was observed as follows. “Two requirements to be satisfied for determining question as to who is a necessary party are: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversy involved in proceedings, and (2) no effective decree can be passed in absence of such party – held that in a suit for specific performance a party showing a fair semblance of title or interest in subject matter of suit, can be impleaded.” Thus, it appears that when it is shown that a party has a fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment. More over, the lower Court, in exercise of its discretionary power, passed a reasoned order and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The CRP is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 10.03.2011 Nsr [1] 2010 (4) ALD 490 [2] (2007) 10 SCC 82 [3] (2010) 7 SCC 417