HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.2702 of 2010 PETITIONERSL Applicants 1. 2. RESPONDENTS: Plaintiff -Versus- 1. Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 Ku. Tarni, D/o Virendra Kumar, aged about 21 years, Occupation Student, Ku. Demeshwari, D/o Virendra Kumar, aged about 20 years Both are R/o Nayapara Rajim, Ward No.10 Sonkar Para, Post Nayapara Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur (CG) Beniram Sahu, S/o Shri Devi Prasad Sahu, aged about 51 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Pahda, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (CG), presently residing at Quarter No.04/B, Road No.25, Sector-04, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) Virendra Kumar Thakur, S/o Nathu Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Pahda, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (CG), presently residing at Sonkar Para, Near Ganjmandi Navapara (Rajim), District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Durg (CG) Present Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel;forthe petitioners. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER (16-6-2010) 1. The petitioners have questioned legality and propriety of the impugned order of Annexure-P/1 whereby learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Bemetara has rejected the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short '& . ' S J %-.. ^:.?' s "^s^y ^ 'the Code') for joining them as defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. 2. Shri Sahu, learned counsellfor the petitioners submitted that the plaintiff has filed the above suit against Virendra Kumar Thakur, father of the petitioners, on the basis of agreement to sale, however, the petitioners being daughters of the vendor have share in the joint Hindu family property recorded in the name of the defendant father and as such, are joint owners and they are inecessary party in the suit. The plaintiff is only entitled to get the sale deed executed from the defendants only to the extent of hisshare in the. property, that too after partition of the joint Hindu family property. By adding the petitioners as defendants would not change the nature of the suit. On the contrary, by impleading all the necessary and proper party, multiplicity of the proceeding may be avoided. Relying upon the decision in the matter of Kamta Prasad and others Vs. Vidyawati and others {1995 M.P.L.J. 127}, it was argued that where a person is vitally interested in the litigation and ultimate decree which may be passed in the said litigation vitally affecting his rights, he may apply to be added as a party and the Court in exercise of its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) or under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC can permit such joinder. 3. Heard. 1 4. Learned Additional District Judge has rejected theapplication with an observation that the petitioners are not party to the agreement for sale; the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the petitioners; the defendant in his writteri statement has admitted execution of agreement, his ownership|and possession over the suit property. In " th§3ecircumstances, the petitioners are not necessary party. 5~ The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Panna and another Vs. Jeewanlal and another {1976 JLJ 84} had an occasion to consider the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition. While considering the scope of exercise of powers under sub-rule (2) of @!^^%^^ Rule 10 of Order 1, it was obServed that to determine whether a party is a necessary party there must be a right tosome relief against such party in respectofthe matter involved in the proceeding in question and it should not be possible to pass aneffective decree in the absence of such a part:y. It has been further observed that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. The plaintiff cannot be required to changethe nature of his suit on the ground that the addition of a party is necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits. It has been categorically held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale in respect of a property against the defendant, some person who applies for being impleaded as pari:y to the suit on the ground that he has a right by birth in the suit property, cannot be joined as a party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, because if such a person was allowed to intervene in the suit as party, the nature or the suit will change from a suit for specific performance of a contract to that of a suit for title. 6 In the matter of Rasiklal Shankerlal Soni Vs. Natverlal Shankerlal Upadhyaya and others {AIR 1975 GUJARAT178} also, the Gujarat High Court hasheld that in a suit for specific peri'ormance of contract, defendant's sisters could not be allowed to be joined as parties to the suit on the ground that they have shares in the agreemented property. 7. In Kamta Prasad (Supra), the plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition, injunction and possession of her share in the agricultural land. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners and in these circumstances, the petitioners after coming to know about the pendency of the suit prayed for joining them as defendants. 8. Thus, facts in the case relied upon by the petitioners are dislinguishable. 9. In the instant case alsd, the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract bn the basis of agreement executed by Virendra Kumar, father of the petitioners. The petitioners are not r< •::-^. ' '^¥ **' •\ M' Barve parties to the agreement. Their claim that being daughters of defendant No.1 they also have share in the property and as such, joint owners, cannot be decided in a suit for specific performance of contract, as aforesaid dispute would change nature of the suit. 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, 1 am of the opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below warranting interference in | exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. ll.The petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge