THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4697 OF 2009 DATED: 11-02-2011. Between 1.T.Chandra Prakash and others … Petitioners And 1.Gulbir Singh and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4697 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30-07-2009, in I.A.No.307 of 2008 in O.S.No.56 of 2006, on the file of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC to implead the petitioners as defendants 2 to 6 in the suit was dismissed on the ground that they are not necessary parties to the suit. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the decision reported in KASTURI V IYYAMPERUMAL AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “As discussed here in earlier, whether respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 were proper parties or not the governing principle for deciding the question would be that the presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 before the Court would be necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. As noted hereinearlier, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and whether contract was executed by the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for sale of the contracted property, whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is an admitted position that the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in the suit on the strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale has been filed. Admittedly, they based their claim on independent title and possession of the contracted property. It is, therefore, obvious as noted hereinearlier that in the event, the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 are added or impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession which is not permissible in law. In the case of Vijay Pratap and others v. Sambhu Saran Sinha and others reported, in 1996 (10) SCC 53, this Court had taken the same view which is being taken by us in this judgment as discussed above. This Court in that decision clearly held that to decide the right, title and interest in the suit property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be turned into a regular title suit. Therefore, in our view, a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. As discussed above, in the event any decree is passed against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in favour of the appellant for specific performance of the contract for sale in respect of the contracted property, the decree that would be passed in the said suit, obviously, cannot bind the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11. It may also be observed that in the event, the appellant obtains a decree for specific performance of the contracted property against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, then, the Court shall direct execution of deed of sale in favour of the appellant in the event respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refusing to execute the deed of sale and to obtain possession of the contracted property he has to put the decree in execution. As noted hereinearlier, since the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 were not parties in the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of the contracted, property, a decree passed in such a suit shall not bind them and in that case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 would be at liberty either to obstruct execution in order to protect their possession by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of the CPC, if they are available to them, or to file an independent suit for declaration of title and possession against the appellant or respondent No.3. On the other hand, if the decree is passed in favour of the appellant and sale deed is executed, the stranger to the contract being the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11 have to be sued for taking possession if they are in possession of the decretal property. “ In view of the above decision, it is clear that in a suit for specific performance, only parties to the agreement of sale are necessary parties. Since the petitioners are third parties to the suit, they cannot be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial Court after considering the material, rightly dismissed the application and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 11-02-2011 Hsd [1] AIR 2005 SC 2813