A suit for specific performance cannot be enlarged to convert it into a suit for title and possession, and therefore, a third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added in a suit for specific performance.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2003 in I.A.No.119 of 2003 in O.S.No.170 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai.

2. The suit in O.S.No.170 of 2001 has been preferred by the first petitioner, since deceased, against the fourth respondent praying for a decree of specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement dated 17.04.1997 stated to have been executed by the said respondent.

3. The said suit was contested by the fourth respondent by filing written statement. While so, the respondents 1 to 3 filed an application in I.A.No.119 of 2003 praying for an order to implead them as defendants, as according to them, they are the children of the fourth respondent and they also got right in the suit property. The said application was opposed by the first petitioner, since deceased, on the ground that the proposed parties are unnecessary parties to the proceeding, as they have nothing to do with the agreement in question.

4. The learned trial Judge, as per order dated 10.10.2003, allowed the application for impleading by rejecting the contention of the first petitioner. It is the said order which is impugned in the present civil revision.

5. I have heard Mr.R.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

6. Admittedly the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2001 is for a decree for specific performance. The basis for filing the said suit is a sale agreement executed by the fourth respondent with the revision petitioner on 17.04.1997, in and by which the fourth respondent agreed to sell the suit property to the first petitioner, since deceased. The lis involved in the matter is between the deceased first petitioner and the fourth respondent. The alleged right of the respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to the suit property is altogether a different matter to be agitated by them in an appropriate proceeding. The present suit being one for specific performance, the only issue to be decided is about the enforceability of the agreement in question. Such being the position, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge committed a serious error in impleading the respondents 1 to 3 as party to the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2001.

7. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal reported on (2005(6) SCC 733), the Apex Court considered the question as to whether a third party or stranger to the contract could be added in a suit for specific performance and held thus:

"4. In order to decide the question, as framed hereinearlier, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) under which the court is empowered to add a party in the suit. However, our answer to the question framed, as raised by the learned counsel for the parties, is that the High Court as well as the trial court had acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in allowing the application of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 for their addition as defendants in the suit. There are certain special statutes which clearly provide as to who are the persons to be made as parties in the proceeding/suit filed under that special statute. Let us take the example of the provisions made under the Representation of the People Act. Section 82 of the aforesaid Act clearly provides who are the persons to be made parties in election petitions. There are other special statutes which also postulate who can be joined as parties in the proceedings instituted under that special statute, otherwise the provisions of CPC should be applicable. So far as addition of parties under CPC is concerned, we find that such power of addition of parties emanates from Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. As we are concerned in the instant case with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, we do not find it necessary to refer to other provisions of CPC excepting Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which reads as under:

“10. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff