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