1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.4721/2008 Sushil Kumar. vs. Hari Singh & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4721/2008 Sushil Kumar. vs. Hari Singh and another. Date : 25.2.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.VK Bhadu, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Choudhary, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. In a suit filed for specific performance of contract, the respondent no.2 Kan Singh has been impleaded as party mainly on the ground that he has set up agreement for sale of the property in his favour which is prior to the agreement to sale set up by the petitioner/plaintiff in his plaint. According to Kan Singh, he entered into agreement to purchase the property on 13.5.2003 for consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. The suits for specific performance of contract are of special nature wherein the Court can grant the decree for specific performance of contract 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.4721/2008 Sushil Kumar. vs. Hari Singh & Anr. and third party who is claiming his any right on the basis of agreement to sale may it be prior to the agreement to sale set up in the suit, is neither necessary nor proper party because of the reason that the agreement to sale itself creates no right, title or interest in the property in favour of the holder of the agreement as purchaser from the vendor. In view of the above reason, the trial court committed error of law by impleading respondent no.2 as party vide the impugned order dated 15.5.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr. reported in 2005(1) WLC (SC) Civil 793 wherein an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by the Court on the ground that the transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as party in the suit even for specific performance of contract. The facts of the case clearly show that the applicant Kan Singh's case is that he is having an agreement to sale in his favour which is dated 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.4721/2008 Sushil Kumar. vs. Hari Singh & Anr. 13.5.2003 and it is not his case that he has filed suit for specific performance of contract so as to enforce the agreement of the year 2003, therefore, in a suit filed for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff, he cannot be impleaded as party and the judgment of Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.5.2008 is set aside. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya