Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. These Appeals require us to indicate the circumstances and delineate the parameters in which a third party can be permitted to be impleaded in a suit for Specific Performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. The analysis would perforce have to consider whether it is justifiable to dilute the principle of the Plaintiff being dominus litis to the extent that the Plaintiff can successfully resist the impleadment of an assignee/transferee of the contract subsisting between him and the Plaintiff and a second party.

2. We must immediately consider two Judgments authored by Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, J. on behalf of Two Judge Benches, namely (i) Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403 and (ii) Dhanalakshmi v. P. Mohan, (2007) 10 SCC 719. In the first case, their Lordships analyzed Order XXII Rule 10, Order I Rule 10, Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC' for short) as well as Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`TP Act' for short). However, there was no representation for the Respondent in this case, namely, Amit Kumar, hence the plethora of precedents on this vital limb of the law were neither cited nor considered.