Hon'ble ROY, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ application filed by the appellant challenging order of the Court below allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, was dismissed after hearing counsel for the parties.

3. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC would not be maintainable and therefore, the Court below and the learned Single Judge of this Court erred in allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel further submitted that since the suit for specific performance was in between the parties, who had agreed to sell the land in question, third person's interference would not be permissible as it would change the scope of the suit for specific performance of a contract. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the apex Court in case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC page 733. In the light of the judgment, learned counsel submitted that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the