IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1405 of 2006 KAILASH KUMAR MANDAL Versus VIDYA DEVI & ORS ----------- 4. 17.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for O.P.No.1. In the opinion of this Court the impleadment of O.P.No.1 as defendant in a suit for specific performance was not required to be made in terms of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason being that it was a case for out and out specific performance of contract in between the plaintiff petitioner and defendant- O.P.Nos. 2 and 3. The story introduced by the defendant- O.P.No.1 that in the life time of the father she had been given a oral gift has to be noticed for its being rejected, inasmuch as there would be no validity of oral gift and at least on that basis she cannot stake claim a right of being impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance. The further plea of the opposite party no. 1 that after the death of her father she was entitled to her share, the property being self acquired property of her father, again would not 2 necessitate for her being added as a party in the suit in hand. If the petitioner is so sanguine about her title, she could always file her own independent title suit. That being so, this Court is not in a position to approve the reasoning of the court below which has obviously committed a clear and apparent jurisdictional error in allowing impleadment of defendant O.P.No.1 as a party to the suit. That being so, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/