1. This is the plaintiff’s Chamber Summons to amend the plaint by impleading the respondent as defendant No.5 and seeking various reliefs against the respondent, including a declaration that a deed of conveyance dated 31st October 2007 executed between defendant No.1 and the respondent in respect of the suit property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and an order directing the respondent to carry out all acts for the transfer and vesting of the suit property, mentioned in the plaint and handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

2. The suit is filed for specific performance of an alleged agreement dated 28th July 2005 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, as allegedly modified. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the heirs of the person in possession of the suit property. In this Chamber Summons it is not necessary to consider merits of the rival contentions of the parties. Suffice it to say that according to the plaintiff, the agreement between defendant No.1, one K.P. Subhash, the predecessor of defendant nos. 2 to 4 and the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property namely land admeasuring 3592 sq. yards area was modified on 20th July 2005 in a meeting in the office of the solicitors of defendant No.1. Pursuant thereto a draft agreement was prepared and finalized on 24th October 2005. A copy of the alleged final agreement is annexed as Exhibit “A” to the plaint. It is the plaintiff’s case that the same was e-mailed to the Solicitors of defendant No.1 and was accepted by the defendants with minor changes as set out in the e-mail, annexed at Exhibit “B” to the plaint. After the alleged finalization of the agreement the said K. P. Subhash expired on 17th November 2005. Thereafter the defendants refused to perform the alleged agreement.

3. For the purpose of this Chamber Summons, I have proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff’s case for specific performance is that there was an alleged agreement for sale of the suit property entered into between the plaintiff, defendant no.1 and the predecessor of defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4, although the plaint, to say the least, lacks clarity.

4. The suit was filed on 20th September 2007. The plaintiffs took out Notice of Motion No. 4014 of 2007 for the usual interim reliefs in a suit for specific performance. By an affidavit-in-reply dated 12th March 2008, served on the plaintiffs on 28th March 2008, the defendants disclosed a purported deed of conveyance dated 31st October 2007 by which the property was transferred to the respondent/proposed defendant No. 5, M/s. Swastik Realtors. It is contended that defendant nos. 2 and 4 being partners in the respondent firm, the respondent had knowledge of the suit agreement, and the said conveyance dated 31st October 2007 is therefore mala fide and entered into with an intention to defeat the plaintiff’s rights. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs have therefore, challenged the deed of conveyance, contending the same to be null and void and not binding on them and have prayed for the cancellation thereof.

5. The question that falls for consideration in this Chamber Summons is whether the respondents being strangers to the suit transaction can be impleaded in this suit for specific performance thereof and whether the agreement, entered into by them with the defendants can be challenged in this suit. The question to my mind admits of any easy and an obvious answer in the affirmative. I however intend dealing with the question in some detail as I find a contention to the contrary being raised often in this Court based inter-alia on a misconstruction of the judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court.

6. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants and the respondent that the respondents cannot be impleaded in this suit as they were strangers to the suit transaction. It was submitted that the plaintiff must first obtain a decree for specific