In specific performance suits, a plaintiff cannot be compelled to join third parties, preserving their control over the litigation.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, permitting impleadment of a third party in I.A.No.685 of 2023, is before this Court, by way of the above revision.

2. I have heard Mr.N.U.Pressanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mrs.G.Lavanya for the respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 and Mr.Ramaswamy Meyyappan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) for the respondents 10 to 12.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application filed by a third party seeking impleadment in a suit for specific performance, which has been filed by the revision petitioner against the defendants. He would further state that the plaintiff has come to Court to enforce a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants and the proposed party had no role to play in the said suit. He would further state that by permitting impleadment, the Trial court has enlarged the scope of the suit itself. He would further state that the suit property originally belonged to one Ramasamy @ Ramalinga Gramani, who had sold it to Balasoundara Mudaliar and Munisamy @ Sinouvassane, even as early as in 1965. However, the said Sale Deed was declared as null and void by the Sub- Court, Puducherry in O.S.No.203 of 1968, in and by a judgment and decree dated 20.03.1970, in a suit which had been filed by the said Ramasamy @ Ramalinga Gramani. It is subsequent to the death of the said Ramasamy @ Ramalinga Gramani that the property came to vest with the defendants, who have entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the impleading/proposed party admittedly claims under Balasoundara Mudaliar and Munisamy @ Sinouvassane, whose Sale Deed has already been set aside and the same has become final and therefore, even from this angle, the impleading application should not have been entertained.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others , reported in (2020) 13 SCC 773 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, an application for impleadment of even a subsequent transferee cannot be allowed against the wishes of the plaintiff who is the dominus litis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it is a risk that the plaintiff takes and the plaintiff can never be forced to join third parties in his suit.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Trial Court had rightly allowed the application, finding that the impleading applicant had purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed and he would therefore be a necessary party.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order of the Trial Court.

7. A suit for specific performance is one where a contract between two definite parties is sought to be enforced by one of them. The issues that arise in a suit for specific performance are only with regard to the validity of the said agreement between the parties and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his obligations under the said agreement of sale. Now the impleading applicant, who has been permitted to be impleaded by the Trial Court, claims right over the suit property under a registered Sale Deed.

8. It is the matter of different concern that the sa