The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Order I Rule 10 regarding necessary and proper parties in a suit, emphasizing the discretion of the court to add or strike out parties and the criteria for determining necessary and proper parties.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2015 in O.S.No.3 of 2014 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the order passed in I.A.No.100 of 2015 in O.S.No.3 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, thereby, allowing the petition to implead the proposed party as one of the defendants.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the second and third respondents are the defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 11.11.2009 in respect of the suit property. While pending the suit, the first respondent filed a petition to implead himself as a party to the suit filed by the petitioner herein for specific performance. The first respondent claimed that the suit property originally belonged to one Govindharajan by virtue of partition deed dated 07.05.1973. Thereafter, he died on 31.12.2012 and after his demise, the proposed party and other legal heirs are entitled to the suit property. Accordingly, the proposed party has 1/3rd share in the suit property and as such, he filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem and the same was decreed and 1/3rd share in the suit property was allotted in favour of the first respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the other legal heirs viz., the second and third respondents herein filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.27 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem. Though, they filed Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.828 of 2015 and it is pending, the first respondent is necessary and proper party to the suit filed by the petitioner herein and filed a petition to implead himself as a party to the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for specific performance was filed in pursuant to the agreement for sale entered between the petitioner and the second and third respondents herein. The first respondent is absolutely not a proper or necessary party in the suit for specific performance. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment reported in CDJ 2005 SC 511 (Kasturi -vs- Iyyamperumal & others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-

“Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Specific Performance of Agreement for Sale – Impleading Third Party – Whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property, is entitled to be added as a party/defendant in the said suit? - Held - It is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person – The stranger to the contract, namely the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 making claim independent and adverse to the title of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither necessary nor proper parties, and therefore, not entitled to join as party defendants in the suit for specific performance of contract of sale.”

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 2009 for partition, in which he was declared 1/3rd share in the suit proper