THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4786 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.21 of 2007 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kadapa, against the respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06.12.2006. It was stated that the consideration for the property was fixed at Rs.11,20,000/- and as against it, Rs.2,80,000/- was paid as advance. Stating that the respondent did not execute the sale deed, in spite of repeated demands, the petitioner filed the suit. The respondent filed a written statement admitting the execution of agreement of sale. He however stated that apart from himself, his father and brothers also have interest in the property and that he is not competent to convey the same in its entirety. In view of this pleading, the petitioner filed I.A.No.471 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead the father and brothers of the respondent herein as proposed defendants 2 to 4. Though outside the scope of the petition, prayer was also made to permit him to add paragraph 6(A) in the plaint. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. though order dated 29.09.2009. Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it became necessary to implead the proposed defendants in view of the specific averment made by the respondent in the written statement. He contends that the trial Court relied upon a precedent, which has no relevance to the facts of the case. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the agreement of sale is between the petitioner and the respondent and there is no occasion or necessity for impleading the persons, who are not parties to the contract. On his part, the petitioner has chosen to file the suit only against the respondent to enforce the agreement of sale. It is only when the respondent came forward with a plea that his father and brothers also have share, that the petitioner filed an application for impleading those persons. The prayer in that I.A. to permit him to add paragraph 6(A) in the plaint is totally impermissible. In a suit for specific performance, the parties would be generally those who are parties to agreement itself. However, it is not uncommon that persons who are not parties to the agreement are also impleaded in the suit, for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act lends supports to this. But for the averment made in the written statement that the father and brothers of the respondent have interest in the property, there would not have been any need for the petitioner to file the application. The judgment in Krishan Lal and others vs. Tek hand and others[1] relates to an instance, where a person who is a stranger to agreement of sale wanted himself to be impleaded as a defendant. The Court took the view that no stranger to an agreement can get himself impleaded as defendant in the suit, particularly when the plaintiff opposes. The case on hand presents exactly the opposite scenario. The plaintiff wants to implead certain others, whom the sole defendant has named. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. At any rate, the opposition if any ought to have been from the persons, who are sought to be impleaded. There is absolutely no justification for the respondent in offering resistance to the I.A. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 29.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.471 of 2009 is set aside with costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only). The trial Court shall issue notice to the proposed parties and dispose of the I.A. afresh. The prayer in the I.A. for permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint shall stand rejected and it shall be open to him to seek such amendment separately. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 21.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4786 of 2009 Date: 21.07.2010 JSU [1] AIR 1987 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 197