The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.229 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property, a rice mill. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children, and petitioner No.5 is the wife of the 2nd respondent, i.e. the 1st defendant. They filed I.A.No.520 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead them as defendants. It is pleaded that the 2nd respondent herein colluded with the 1st respondent, the plaintiff, who is none other than his brother-in-law and got filed the suit, to knock away the joint family property. They also stated that the alleged agreement of sale is inoperative in law. Reference was made to a decree dated 25-01-2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2007 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, for partition between themselves and the respondents 2 and 3, in respect of various items, including the suit schedule property in O.S.No.229 of 2005.

The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. He pleaded that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties and that the application is filed only with an object of protracting the proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in KASTURI V. IYYAMPERUMAL (AIR 2005 SC 2813). Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the view taken by the trial Court is not correct, and that the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in SUMTIBAI v. PARAS FINANCE CO. (AIR 2007 SC 3166) holds good. He contends that it is only when the proposed party does not have any right or interest whatever, that an application to get himself impleaded in a suit for specific performance can be rejected. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of there being properties of the joint family, and the beneficiaries under a preliminary decree, passed in O.S.No.229 of 2005, the petitioners are necessary parties.

The notice sent to the 1st respondent was returned with an endorsement that the addressee refused to receive it. Hence, it is deemed that the notice is served upon him. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent did not contest the I.A. Basically, it is for the plaintiff in a suit, to identify the parties against whom he has any grievance and to implead them as defendants in the suit filed for necessary relief. He cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance. Where, however, any third party is likely to suffer any grievance, on account of the outcome of the suit, he shall be entitled to get himself impleaded. The question as to whether an individual is a proper or necessary party to a suit, would depend upon the nature of relief claimed in the suit and the right or interest projected by the persons, who propose to get themselves impleaded. No hard and fast rule can be weighed, that would cover a possible situation in this regard.In KASTURI’Scase (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., in the suit filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. It was held that unless the proposed parties have any subsisting rights, their application to get themselves impleaded cannot be entertained. It was also clarified that, if they specify or indicate any subsisting right, they can certainly be impleaded. In a subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in SUBTIBAI’Scase (2 supra), the purport of the judgment in KASTURI’Scase (1 supra) was explained. It was mentioned that mere likelihood of persons acquiring right or interest in the subject-matter of a suit would be sufficient for the concerned individual to get himself impleaded.This Court in INDU BAI AND ANOTHER v. RAJENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI AND ANOTHER (2009(5) ALD 402)held as under:

“…It is true that an individual cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigati