IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.453 OF 2008 Between: C. Harika and others .....PETITIONERS AND S. Papi Reddy and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.453 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 18.12.2007, in I.A.No.1428 of 2007 in O.S.No.10 of 2004, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to implead the petitioners herein, who are daughters of defendant No.2, as defendant Nos.5 to 7 in the suit, was dismissed on the ground that in a suit for specific performance, the parties to the document are only necessary and proper parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of the collusive agreement of sale the present suit is filed, so as to defeat the rights of the petitioners/proposed parties and so, the petitioners are necessary and proper parties to be brought on record and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that in a suit for specific performance only parties to the document are necessary and proper parties for proper adjudication of the dispute in question and so, the impugned order needs no interference and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. empowers a Court to deal with all cases of defect of parties. It enables a Court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add any person as a party who ought to have joined as plaintiff or defendant. The provision thus confers wide discretion on the Court to meet with every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the action of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court held that parties to the document are only necessary and proper parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of collusive agreement, the rights of the petitioners will be affected seriously and therefore, to safeguard the interest of the petitioners in the property, they may be brought on record. But, in a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others[1], it is held thus: “Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice.” Similarly, in another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company and others[2], it is held thus: “The proper course of action for Respondent 1 would have been to challenge the consent decree not in its suit for specific performance, but in a separate suit for declaration that the consent decree ought not to have been passed and the same was not binding on the respondent. By seeking amendment of the plaint in its suit for specific performance, Respondent 1 has created its own difficulties by substantially changing the nature and character of the original suit, which is not permissible in law. If, as was held in Durga Prasad case the impleadment of the appellant was only for the purpose of joining him in the conveyance if Respondent 1’s suit ultimately succeeded, the ratio of the said decision would possibly have been applicable to the facts of this case. Unfortunately, that is not the case here, since Respondent 1 has by amending the plaint prayed for a declaration that the consent decree obtained by the appellant was not binding on him and also for a declaration that the consent decree was null and void and was liable to be quashed.” So, in view of the above decisions it is clear that in a suit for specific performance, parties to the document are only necessary and proper parties. Admittedly, the petitioners are not parties to the document. Even without the presence of the petitioners/proposed parties the question involved in the suit can be adjudicated finally and effectively. Therefore, even if they do not come on record and the agreement between the parties is a collusive one, their right, if any, in the property will not be affected in any manner. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 31, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.453 OF 2008 January 31, 2011 [1] (2010) 7 SCC 417 [2] (2008) 13 SCC 658