3 #35 %.21.08.2009 Present: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate for the Appellant. + FAQ (OS) 329/09 & CMMrM.0891/2009 This appeal is preferred by the appellant against dismissal of its application i.e. lA No. 5404/07 filed in Civil Suit CS (OS) No.2182/2006. This application was preferred by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking its impleadment in the suit for Specific Performance filed by the respondent no.l herein, against the respondent no.2, on the basis of agreement to sell, in respect of the disputed property. The admitted facts are that the appellant filed OA before Debt Recovery Tribunal impleading four respondents including the respondent no.2 herein and a partial decree of Rs.22 Crores has already been passed in these proceedings against those respondents including the respondent no. 2 i.e. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. However, it is also conceded that the property in question was never mortgaged with the appellant bank. The case set up by the appellant bank is that the said property is attached in those proceedings and there was an injunction given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in relation to the suit property. In these circumstances. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I' ,n. ( we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the appellant herein can apply to the DRT for appropriate orders in relation to the suit property. Normally in a suit for specific performance third party/stranger cannot be impleaded as a party, as held in the following cases:- 1. Ganga Bishan & Co. V. S.L. Bhateja's Nursing Home Trust, ! 1998 (47) DRJ 561. 2. Sanjay Gupta V. Smt Kela Wati, 85 (2000) DLT 828. We do not find any infirmity in the said order and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J August 21,2009 HL