The main legal point established is that a person may be added as a party to a suit for specific performance if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as per Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and S.19 of the Specific Relief Act.

The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property dated 28th March ;1982 executed by the first defendant, is the revision petitioner. The second defendant is his wife, whereas the third defendant is his son.

2. Taking the stand that she has improperly been joined as a party to the suit, the second defendant preferred an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with S.151 C.P.C. to have her name removed from the party array. The court below by the order under challenge, has allowed the said petition.

3. A resume of facts essential and requisite to dispose of the question, whether the second defendant has validly been joined as a party to the suit, is stated hereunder: The first defendant in the agreement has conceded that the property is owned by him. It has further been stated therein to the effect that, though he had executed 'aground rent deed' in favour of the second defendant leasing the land where the theatre building, other structures etc., have been constructed, the second defendant thereby has not got any interest in or possession of the said building, structures etc. or any part of the schedule property. Yet one other statement in the agreement which is relevant in the context, is this:

The second defendant has accordingly, been made a formal party to the suit "for the purpose of getting an effective decree for specific performance".

4. The first defendant in his written statement however, has taken a stand inconsistent with the above stand, he has taken in the agreement in regard to the alleged right, the second respondent is having in the property. He has positively stated in the written statement that the theatre building and other structures belong to his wife. This is what is stated in the written statement:

"Twenty five cents and virivu of garden land referred to in the plaint has been in the possession and enjoyment of the second defendant on ground rent from 1950 and she has put up theatre buildings and other structures and has been giving them on rent to film exhibition for conducting cinema shows."

This leasehold right, it is said, has been renewed by Document No. 2081 of 1971 of the Sub Registry, Kanjirapally. Regarding the agreement, the first defendant has stated thus in the written statement:

"The agreement at best is only a contingent agreement capable of performance only in the event of the 2nd defendant joining in the execution of the sale deed envisaged in the agreement and transferring her rights and interests also The agreement is enforcible only in the event of the second defendant agreeing to dispose of the property and join in the execution of the sale deed. Until that event happens the agreement cannot be enforced and the agreement has therefore become void and there is no contract which can be made the basis of a decree for specific performance."

5. Going by the above statements in the written statement it cannot be said that the second defendant has no direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation. In this connection it is relevant to make specific reference to the suit instituted by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff for arrears of rent before the Munsiff 's Court which, according to the plaintiff, is nothing but a collusive action with the 1st defendant. At the same time as already noted, the statements in the agreement disclose that the 2nd defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in the property, leave alone the theatre building and other structures.

6. The law dealing with the addition or striking out of the parties as plaintiffs or defendants is stated in Clauses 2, 4 and 5 of Rule 10 Order 1 C.P.C. Here we are concerned only with clause 2. It reads:

"The Court may at any stage of proceedings, eitherupon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out