The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to determine whether a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and the plaintiffs cannot be forced to add a party against whom they do not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

ORDER

1. The present respondents No.1, 2, and 3, as plaintiffs, have instituted a suit in O.S.No.104/2010, against the present respondents No.4 and 5 arraigning them as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Trial Court') for the relief of specific performance with respect to sale of an immovable property.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner, claiming himself as another agreement holder for sale dated 16-05-2008 of the very same suit schedule property in his favour by the defendants No.1 and 2, filed an interlocutory application, i.e. I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the CPC') seeking his impleadment in the suit as defendant No.3. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 24-03-2016, rejected the said interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the impleading applicant (petitioner herein) in the Trial Court has preferred this writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his argument submitted that, the present petitioner is a necessary party for the adjudication of the dispute in O.S.No.104/2010. After entering into a registered sale agreement dated 16-05-2008 (Annexure C) for purchase of immovable property from the defendants 1 and 2, the present petitioner has also paid the balance amount of the sale consideration through a supplementary agreement dated 02-07-2008 (Annexure D) and also has obtained a registered irrevocable power of attorney (Annexure E) in his favour. Thus, the said registered agreement at Annexure C has acted as a public notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs are supposed to have the knowledge of the said transaction, as such, should have impleaded the present petitioner also as a party in the original suit filed by them.

Contending that the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 773 would not come in the way of the petitioner herein getting himself impleaded in the original suit filed by the plaintiffs, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon few reported judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which would be referred to herein afterwards at the appropriate stages.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 (plaintiffs) in his brief argument submitted that, since the time was the essence of the contract under the alleged agreement of sale held by the present petitioner in their support, and due to efflux of the said time, the petitioner's agreement has come to a close. Further, the petitioner's right to sue for specific performance also has stood extinguished.

Learned counsel further submitted that, in the circumstance of the case, it is Gurmit Singh Bhatia's case (supra) which holds the field and the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion with reasons which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

5. The present petitioner contends that with respect to the very same suit schedule property, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.104/2010, he too has an agreement for sale in his favour executed by the very same vendors on date 16-05-2008, a copy of which he has produced at Annexure 'C'. It is his further contention that the balance sale consideration was also paid by him through the supplementary agreement dated 02-07-2008 (Annexure D) and has obtained an irrevocable power of attorney executed by the vendors in his favour as per Annexure E, as such, he is a necessary party in O.S.No.104/2010.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contending that the present petitioner has a direct interest in the suit transaction, as such, he is a necessary party, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others reported in AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 886. In the