A person may be added as a party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC only if their presence is necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties on record, or if their absence would prevent the complete determination of the questions in the suit.

ORDER :- These two Civil Revision Applications arise from two similar orders passed on two separate applications made by the applicants for joining Gonsalo de Filomeno Luis (hereinafter called "theIntervenor") as a party defendant to the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in Civil Revision Application No. 2/72 and the two applicants in Civil Revision Application No. 26/72. The two Revision Applications shall therefore be disposed of by this common judgement.

2. The plaintiff Inacio Piedade H. Fernandes filed a suit against the defendants Jose Mascarenhas and Maria Leonila Games, wife of Jose Mascarenhas, for obtaining the specific performance of an agreement, whereby the defendants had agreed to sell to the plaintiff a plot of land known as "Dongorim". Briefly stated, the facts according to the Petitioners are as follows :- "the Intervenor" is a real estate agent; the defendant No. 1 agree to sell to "the Intervenor" the suit land at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square metre; the agreement was reduced to writing on January 2, 1971; on the same day "the Intervenor" paid Rs. 2,000/- as ear- nest money to the defendants and "the Intervenor" was put in possession of the suit land so as to enable him to survey and make any other arrangements for the purpose of re-sale; "the Intervenor" surveyed the suit land, divided it into plots and advertised its sale in the editions of the newspaper "Uzvad" of 13th and 15th January, 1971; Antonieta Andrade drade of Majorda agreed to purchase a plot of the suit land admeasuring 4000 square meters at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per square metre by an agreement dated January 20, 1971 and paid Rs. 2,000/- to "the Intervenor" as earnest money; Antonieta was put in actual possession of the plot agreed to be sold to her; on January 22, 1971, "the Intervenor" agreed to sell another plot to Surya Govemkar at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per square metre and received Rs. 2,500/- as earnest money; it was agreed that the final deeds should be executed on August 20, 1971 and August 22, 1971 respectively after the balance due was paid, "the Intervenor" was to receive a profit of Rs. 4,500/- in the said transaction; the defendants were bound by the agreement dated 7th January, 1971 to sell the suit land to "the Intervenor"; in the meantime the father of the plaintiff came with a letter from the defendant No. 1; wherein the defendant No. 1 requested "the Intervenor" to help the plaintiffs father to purchase the suit land; the plaintiffs father expressed his willingness to buy the entire suit land at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per square metre; "the Intervenor" told him that in view of the previous agreement, he was unable to do anything, however after negotiations between all the parties concerned, it was decided that the suit land should be sold to the father of the plaintiff, on the plaintiffs father agreeing to pay to "the Intervenor" the sum of Rs. 4,500/- by way of compensation and to pay a further sum of Rupees 1,500/- to each of the sub-purchasers, apart from Rs. 18,000/- to be paid to the defendants; the sale deed was to be executed on April 30, 1971 "in the name of the plaintiff". Various other clauses which are not relevant to this inquiry, are mentioned to have been stipulated in the Agreement which is alleged to have been entered between "the Intervenor" and the father of the plaintiff.

3. The question for my determination is, whether "the Intervenor was a proper or necessary party to the present suit. The law on the subject can be formulated from the decisions in Firm of Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills v. Chennimalai Goundar, AIR 1968 Mad 287, Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 57, (1892) 1 Ch 487, Foll. and AIR 1958 Andh Pra 195 Ref. (sic). The principles governing the powers of the Court under O. 1, R. 10 of C. P. C. are : "As a rule the Court should not add a person as a defendant in a suit when the plaintiff is opposed to such additi