IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 OF 2008 Between: M. Narasimha Chary .....PETITIONER AND M. Balamani and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 25.07.2008, in I.A.No.889 of 2007 in A.S.No.654 of 2005, on the file of XVII Additional Chief Judge – cum – III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to receive the documents as additional evidence, was dismissed on the ground that there was no explanation given by the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Respondent No.3 herein filed the suit for enforcement of specific performance based on an agreement of sale against respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. In the trial Court, after contest, the suit was decreed. Challenging the same, A.S.No.654 of 2005 is filed before XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. While the appeal was pending, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a party. That petition was dismissed initially and that matter was carried before this Court. This Court vide order, dated 08.06.2007, in C.R.P.No.1219 of 2007, set aside the order of dismissal and permitted the petitioner to implead himself as respondent in the appeal. That order has become final. Now the present application is filed to receive the original documents such as Will, its translation, death certificates etc., as additional evidence. The petitioner herein is claiming title to the suit schedule property basing on a Will and also death certificate of the testator, which were filed in a comprehensive suit viz., O.S.No.35 of 2007, pending before III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not a party to the suit, in a normal circumstance, the documents would have been received by the appellate Court if the case falls under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. But, it is a case where the petitioner was ordered to come on record in an appeal. The issues with regard to specific performance have been resolved by the trial Court. In a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others[1], it is held thus: “That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule (2) Order I Rule 10 CPC “all the questions involved in the suit” it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiff – appellant and the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. 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 Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 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. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title and interest of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinearlier, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale.” So, in view of the above decision, in a suit for specific performance only the parties to the contract are necessary and proper parties. Even though the petitioner was permitted to come on record and was allowed to lead evidence basing on the Will and the death certificate, under which he is claiming right over the suit schedule property, the entire structure of the suit would be changed, because the issue involved in the suit is with regard to enforcement of specific performance, whereas the claim of the petitioner is with regard to title over the suit schedule property. The two reliefs are entirely different and distinct. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is otherwise. Hence, receiving of documents at that stage is nothing but to protract the proceedings, when the issue raised by the petitioner is not at all covered in the appeal. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner to avail such remedies available to him under law particularly with reference to O.S.No.35 of 2007, pending before III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 17, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 OF 2008 February 17, 2011 [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733