( 1 ) THIS civil revision application raises an interesting question about the joinder of parties in a suit for specific performance in which only relief which is claimed is that the original defendant to the suit should execute a document in plaintiffs favour or the same should be executed through the court. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the house bearing Panchayat No. 99 situated in village Kathlal. The petitioner who is the original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Kapadvanj alleging that opponent No. 1. original defendant No. 1. had mortgaged the suit house to him by a registered document dated October 9 1967 for the amount of Rs. 1500. 00. On or about April 8 1969 a second mortgage for Rs. 2000. 00 was created by the said defendant by a registered document. Defendant No. 1 was in need of money and he had taken in all Rs. 4051 P. as loan from him. Defendant No. 1 then entered into an agreement with the petitioner to sell the suit property on September 29 1970 and this agreement is produced in the suit at Ex. 49. By a notice dated January 23 1971 the petitioner called upon defendant No. 1 to remain present at 11-00 a. m. on February 6 1971 in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Documents at Kapadvanj in order to get executed and registered the deed of sale in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into on September 29 1970 Defendant No. 1 did not remain present. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the agreement. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and the main pleas raised by him are that he had not executed any agreement of sale and that he had not received any amount as loan from the plaintiff. On these pleadings the learned trial Judge raised the following issues:1 Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant contracted to sell suit house to him ?2 Whether the defendant proves that he agreed to mortgage suit house by way of conditional sale3 Whether the defendant proves that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this suit ?4 Whether the court has jurisdiction ?5 Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction ?6 Whether the suit in its present form is maintainable ?7 Whether the defendant proves that the document dated 8-4-1969 is without consideration ?8 Whether the defendant proves that the Vasul of Rs. 8010. 00 as contained in para 6 of the written statement Ex. 10 ?the hearing of the suit commenced on or about September 7 1972 and the plaintiff was examined as a witness. The examination of the plaintiff was over on November 24 1972 The last witness on behalf of the plaintiff was examined on January 6 1973 Defendant No. 1 was examined on February 1 1973 His witness was examined on February 3 1973 At this stage opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 3 filed applications Exs. 57 and 70 to join them as parties to the suit on the ground that they are sisters of defendant No. 1 that their father Shankerlal Anopram executed a registered will dated April 17 1947 giving the properties including the suit property absolutely to their brother Batubhai that their father died on February 10 1956 that their brother Batubhai died on July 6 1957 that their mother died on May 11 1967 and according to the provisions of the Hindu Law they are entitled to inherit the suit property. The claim of opponents Nos. 2 and 3 was that they had direct interest in the property and defendant No. 1 had no power to execute the agreement of sale in respect of the entire property that the agreement of sale was not binding on them and if they are not joined as parties to the suit they would be seriously prejudiced. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the sisters had direct interest in the property and therefore he allowed them to be joined as parties to the suit. It is this order which the petitioner challenges in this revision application.

( 2 ) NOW the provisions relating to adding of p