1. These two writ petitions arises out of order passed in O.S. No. 855/2012 and as such, they are taken up together for disposal by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties. Parties are referred to as per rank in the trial Court.

2. Suit O.S. No. 855/2012 for specific performance has been filed by first respondent in W.P. No. 37506/2013, who is petitioner in W.P. No. 14291/2017 seeking following reliefs:

(a) Direct the Defendants to specifically perform their obligations arising under the Joint Development Agreements dated 10.06.2004, 28.10.2005 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 28.10.2005 executed in respect of the Suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and to cooperate with the Plaintiffs in fully implementing the said agreements including by executing and registering deeds revoking the revocation of GPAs dated 14.06.2004 and 28.10.2005.

(b) Declare that the revocation dated 02.07.2009 of the general power of attorneys dated 14.06.2004, registered as document No. 157/04-05 in the office of Krishnarajapuram Sub-Registrar, Bangalore and 29.10.2005, registered as document No. 393/05-06 in the office of Krishnarajapuram Sub-Registrar is illegal and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(c) Pass an order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or anyone claiming through or under them from in any way impeding or interfering with the full implementation of the Joint Development Agreements dated 10.06.2004, 28.10.2005 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 28.10.2005 and the development of the schedule properties in any manner.

(d) Grants costs of the proceedings.

3. On service of suit summons defendants appeared, filed their written statement, denied the averments made in the plaint except to the extent expressly admitted therein. On the basis of pleadings of the parties trial court framed issues on 18.06.2013 - Annexure-C. During the pendency of proceedings before trial Court plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 3 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead:

M/s. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited

Sattva Group, 4th Floor,

Salarpuria Windsor, No. 3,

Ulsoor Road,

Bangalore-560 042

Rep. by its Managing Partner - as 8th defendant, contending inter-alia that applicant who is proposed to be impleaded is necessary and proper party. It was contended that 4th defendant had informed the plaintiff about another development agreement having been entered into by defendants with the proposed 8th defendant in respect of remaining lands measuring 18 acres 7 guntas and 4th defendant had expressed his intention to set up IT/ITES/SEZ jointly in the lands given to plaintiff and proposed 8th defendant and as such said proposal was discussed with proposed 8th defendant and it was mutually agreed to set up IT/ITES/SEZ in the entire lands namely, by clubbing the land given to plaintiff as well as land given to proposed 8th defendant, for which 4th defendant had also consented to take all necessary steps for development of the entire lands and as such, plaintiff had authorised proposed 8th defendant by communication dated 15.04.2006 to take further steps in the matter of filing of necessary application before SEZ Authorities. Hence, contending that proposed 8th defendant was privy to all the discussions and transactions relating to suit schedule properties and order passed in the suit in question would have a bearing on the proposed 8th defendant’s claim and as such, it was contended by plaintiff that proposed defendant is a necessary and proper party to the suit. This application came to be resisted by the defendants by filing detailed statement of objections, Annexure-F. Said application came to be adjudicated by the trial Court under the impugned order dated 01.08.2013 and was allowed by impugned order opining that for effective adjudication of matters in dispute and considering subsequent transactions between parties having taken place, presence of proposed defendant is required and accordingly, application in question ca