Case: Robin Ramjibhai Patel Vs. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar &amp; Others

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who instituted special suit No. 57 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Panvel for the specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain land bearing plot No. 44. As per agreement dated 9.3.2011, respondent no.1 is the vendor. From the facts available on record, it appears that respondent no.1 sold the property allegedly in violation of the agreement, in favour of respondent Nos. 6,7 & 8 on 3.10.2011. Thefiled the aforesaid suit on 2nd February, 2012 and obtained an order of a status quo on 29th February, 2012. Thereafter as per the plaintiffs case respondent Nos. 6 to 8 created interest of third parties in the same property through registered agreements in the month of April, 2012. The appellant as plaintiff made an application to the trial court to implead the proposed purchasers having registered agreement of sale in their favour as defendant. This application was rejected by the trial court and that order was challenged before the High Court but without success as appears from the Order under appeal dated 19.08.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2014.

Court's reasoning:
9. In the aforesaid context, this Court also considered the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC and in paragraph 7 it expressed its view that the relevant provisions show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are not only parties to the contract or their legal representatives but also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. It was further elaborated that "in equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party."10. In our considered opinion, the judgment of the three Judge Bench in the Kasturis case (supra) recognises this special status of a plaintiff which is well settled by several earlier judgments also and when the plaintiff wants to implead certain persons as defendants on the ground that they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors.