1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31-10-2006 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a suit titled Habibullah Bhat Vs. Abdul Gaffar Sofi & ors. dismissing the application of the petitioners -- applicant for impleadment to the suit.

2. Plaintiff, Habibullah Bhat respondent no. 1 herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract and decree of possession against the defendants -- respondents 2 to 4 with the averments as contained in the plaint that defendants executed an agreement to sell, agreeing to sell his property for a consideration of Rs. 9 lacs, out of which Rs. 8 lacs had been paid to the defendants and Rs. 1 lac was to be paid later on. The plaintiff requested the defendants to execute a sale deed in terms of the stipulations contained in the agreement to self but defendants desisted though plaintiff was/is ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract and he had also performed his part of contract by making payment to the tune or Rs. 8 lacs to the defendants and only Rs. One lack is to be paid. The defendants are bound to perform the contract. It is also pleaded that at the time of execution of the agreement plaintiff came in possession of the house excepting two rooms, the possession whereof is also sought.

3. The suit came to be resisted by the defendants 2 and 3 i.e. Ghulam Rasool Sofi and Mst. Azizi but Abdul Gaffar Sofi in terms of his written statement has virtually admitted the claim of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners herein filed application for impleadment on the ground that they are co-sharers and are in possession of the suit property and have thus asserted that they are necessary parties and the judgement will adversely affect their rights and will also cause prejudice to them.

4. It appears that the respondents -- defendants 2 and 3 and plaintiffs 3 and 4 have also pleaded in the written statement that Jawihara. Mstr. Hajira and Mst. Rafiqa are co-sharers and are necessary parties and have also filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction.

5. After hearing parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners are strangers to the agreement to sell and a suit for performance of contract will lie only in between the parties to the agreement and no relief can be claimed against the petitioners by the parties to the agreement. Further the trial court has observed that in case suit will be decreed and if that decree will adversely affect the petitioners, they can resist it by way of any other remedy and care can also be taken while passing judgement in the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioners have filed this revision.

6. Admittedly petitioners are strangers and are not parties to the agreement and a suit for performance of contract will lie only against parties to the agreement. Thus a person who is not a party to the agreement can not be arrayed as party to the suit. Provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1996 contained in Chapter-II provides how a suit can be filed. As per the mandate of the Act, only those persons can be arrayed as party to the suit who are parties to agreement and who are claiming under vendor or vendee. Applying the test to the instant case, the petitioners herein are neither party to the agreement nor are claiming under vendor/vendee. Thus they can not be arrayed as party in the suit. It is profitable to reproduce para 8 of the apex court judgement titled Kasturi Vs. lyyamprumal & others, 2005 SAR (Civil) 500:

"....We have carefully considered sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19 of the Act. From a careful examination of the aforesaid provisions of sub-sections (a) to (e) of the Specific Relief Act we are of the view that the persons seeking addition in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale who were not claiming under the vendor but they were claiming adverse to the title of the vendor do not fall in any of the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document