IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4475 OF 2010 Date:25.03.2011 Between:- Late K.Nagender Rao, died per L.Rs. and others ..Petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs And 1. M/s.Vikram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderbad. 2. The Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad. .. Respondents/respondents/defendants 3. M.Narayana 4. M.Hymavathi .. Respondents/Proposed respondents/ defendants 3 & 4 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.07.2010, in I.A.No.340 of 2009 in O.S.No.577 of 2005 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to implead respondent Nos.3 and 4 as defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.577 of 2005, was dismissed. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.577 of 2005 for enforcement of an agreement of sale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 can be brought on record so that the dispute can be settled once for all. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4/proposed parties contended that the proposed parties are the purchasers of the property and they are nothing to do with regard to grant of specific performance. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. There cannot be any dispute that for effectively adjudicating the rights of the parties, once for all, all necessary and proper parties can be brought on record. The grounds to add a party under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. may be exercised on either of two grounds (i) such person ought to have been joined either as a plaintiff or defendant, but is not so joined or (ii) without his presence, the question involved in the suit can not be decided finally and effectively. The main object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The suit was filed by plaintiff to enforce the agreement of sale. 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 if the proposed parties are to be impleaded, no relief can be granted against the proposed parties in the suit. In the suit for specific performance, the rights of the proposed parties cannot be determined or adjudicated. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.4475 OF 2010 Date:25.03.2011 AMD [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733