1. Instant writ petition is directed against order dt.25/02/2015 whereby the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Beawar has rejected the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as parties-respondents in the Suit No.21/2012, titled as Jalam Singh & ors. Vs. Moti & ors.

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court committed a grave error in rejecting the application of the petitioners. The petitioners were necessary and proper parties and ought to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. He contended that the suit for specific performance is a product of conspiracy between the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendants-respondents and the suit property vests in the petitioners by virtue of registered sale deed dt.19/09/2014 executed by the defendants-respondents in furtherance of agreement dt.07/10/2009. Thus, according to the ld. counsel, the petitioners, being owners of the suit property, were necessary and proper parties and without their presence, the controversy in the suit could not have been resolved. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr.: AIR 2005 (SC) 2209; Thomson Press (India) Ltd. V. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. And Ors.: AIR 2013 (SC) 2389 and A. Nawab John & Ors. V. V.N. Subramaniyam: 2012 DNJ (SC) 720.

3. Per-Contra, ld. counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned order, contended that the suit for specific performance cannot be converted into a title suit and the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties in the suit. They further submitted that the petitioners were fully aware of the suit proceedings right from the inception and participating in the suit as power of attorney holders of defendants No. 6 to 8 and the application was highly belated. In support of contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil: 2010(8) SCC 329; Ambeshwar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Babu lal & ors.: 2012(4) RLW 2984; Chittar Lal and ors. Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and ors.: 2012 (2) WLN 559; Narendra Kumar & ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.7 & ors.: 2013 (3) CDR 1186 (Raj.); Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Anr.: 2004 AIR (SC) 173 and Arun Kr. Jain Vs. Smt. Chhoti Devi, SB Civil Writ petition No.9247/2014, decided on 26/11/2014 by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

5. The question that falls for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as partiesdefendants in the suit No.21/2012 on the ground that during pendency of the suit, they had purchased the property from defendants No.6 to 8 on 19/09/2014.

6. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to delete or add parties to a suit at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively or completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

7. In the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal V. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay: (1992) 2 SCC 524, the Hon'ble Apex Court interpreted the aforesaid provision and held:

“Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the Plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is on