( 1 ) DAULAT Singh, father of the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 51 of 1989 for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed on 22/9/1986 agreeing to sell 7. 17 acres of the land bearing Plot No. 655. Pending decision in the suit, Daulat Singh died. The petitioner came on record as legal representative of Daulat Singh. He filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code seeking leave to amend the plaint by impleading the respondent also as a party-defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner is that Shivnath Mishra, the vendor, had colluded with his sons and wife and had obtained a collusive decree in Suit No. 393 of 1990 under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. By operation thereof, they became co-sharers of the property to be conveyed under the agreement and, therefore, the respondent is a necessary and proper party. The trial court dismissed the petition and on revision, by the impugned order dated 13/7/1994, the High court of Allahabad dismissed the Civil Revision No. 369 of 1993. Thus this SLP

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the respondent having secured an interest as a co-owner in the land by operation of decree of the court toeffectuate the ultimate decree of the specific performance that may be granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondent is a necessary and proper party, and the High court, therefore, has committed grievous error in refusing to bring the respondent on record as second defendant. He seeks to place reliance on Order I, Rule 3, Order I, Rule 10 (2 and Order 22, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. We find no force in the contention

( 3 ) ORDER 22, Rule 10 postulates continuation of suit by or against a person who has, by devolution, assignment or creation, acquired any interest during the pendency of a suit, by leave of the court. The obtaining of a decree and acquiring the status as a co-owner during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, is not obtaining, by assignment or creation or by devolution, an interest. Therefore, Order 22, Rule 10 has no application to this case

( 4 ) EQUALLY, Order 1, Rule 3 is not applicable to the suit for specific performance because admittedly, the respondent was not a party to the contract. Rule 3 of Order 1 provides that:"3. Who may be joined as defendants. All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where (A) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (B) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise

( 5 ) IN this case, since the suit is based on agreement of sale said to have been executed by Mishra, the sole defendant in the suit, the subsequent interest said to have been acquired by the respondent by virtue of a decree of the court is not a matter arising out of or in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions in relation to the claim made in the suit

( 6 ) ORDER 1, Rule 10 (2 postulates that:"10. (2 court may strike out or add parties.- The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit be added

( 7 ) BY operation of the above-quoted rule though the court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party, but the condition precedent is t