1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 instituted a suit for specific performance against opposite party 3. The applicants applied under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of O.1, Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for being impleaded as parties. This application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 3-11-1983. In consequent the interveners-applicants have come up in revision to this Court.

2. Shortly stated the ground, on which the applicants solicited that they may be impleaded as defendants to the suit, was that the property, which had been agreed to be sold by defendant-opposite party 3 to the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1 and 2, was joint Hindu family property and had been acquired by opposite party 3 from the joint family funds which were in his possession. The Additional Subordinate Judge was of the view that the applicants-interveners were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit and the application moved by them under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code was not legally maintainable. The correctness of this view has been assailed before me.

3. Ordinarily a plaintiff to a suit is dominus litis. It is for him to decide the forum where the suit is to be instituted and the persons who have to be impleaded as a party. His choice as to the place of institution of the suit or the parties to it can only be altered or interfered with by the Court under powers given to it by the statute. There is no dispute in the instant case with regard to the place where the suit ought to have been instituted. The only dispute relates to the question as to whether the applicants are proper or necessary parties to it.

4. The provisions of law, which govern a case of this nature, is contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code. Sub-rule (2), inter aria, provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, direct that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as the plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in such suit may be added. The persons who ought to have been joined as the plaintiff or as the defendants as the case may be are for the sake of convenience, referred to as necessary parties. The expression proper party has been coined in relation to such persons 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. It has, therefore, to be examined whether the applicants on the averments made by them would be considered either as necessary parties or proper parties. If they do not fall in any of these categories, the revision application must fail.

5. Now the question as to whether the property had been acquired by the defendant-opposite party 3 with joint family funds and was in consequence a joint family property, was wholly foreign to the scope of the suit. On the allegations made in the plaint and in the written statement filed by opposite party 3, the adjudication of this question was not necessary. It cannot, therefore, be said that the intervener-applicant were necessary parties to the suit. The only question which requires examination is whether they fall under the category of proper party.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the In-terveners-applicants contended that the claim of the plaintiff-opposite parties 1 and 2 related to immoveable property. He submitted that the considerations which would arise in a case of specific performance of a contract simpliciter would not govern the instant case. I am unable to appreciate the distinction which is sought to be drawn by the learned counsel between a contract governing immovable property and a contract simpliciter. The array of parties in a suit for specific performance shall be the same irrespective