In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into by the Karta of a HUF, the coparcener is not a necessary party to the suit if the plaintiff has been put into possession of the property, has paid the entire sale price to the Karta, and the issues in the suit can be completely and effectively adjudicated upon without the presence of the coparcener.

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. The short question, in this revision petition from an order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner under O.1, R.10 of the Civil P. C. (for short the Code ), is as to whether in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser against the Karta of a family the coparcener is a necessary party to the suit or one without he being there, the question arising in the suit for specific performance cannot be effectively or completely adjudicated upon.

2. The aforementioned question has to be answered in the light of the facts which can be stated thus. One Nand Kishore Behl purchased a plot No. 82 located in Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 14th Oct., 1944. He died in the year 1954 leaving behind five sons namely, Jagdish Lal, Kanti Kumar, Saish Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Baldev Krishan. Baldev Krishan, out of them separated his share from the Hindu Undivided family in question on 1st April, 1976. The memorandum of the partition dt. 5th April, 1976 accorded to him inter alia 1/5th share in the said plot No. 82. Baldev Krishan by two separate agreements executed on 24th April, 1979 sold out his 1/5th share in the said plot to Aruna Kansal and her husband Satish Kumar for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, each. He at that time received Rs. 4000/- each as earnest money. On 12th Jan., 1981, he executed another set of agreements under which he received the entire sale amount and delivered the possession to the plaintiff-vendees. Thereafter when he failed to execute the sale deeds, two separate suits for specific performance were launched against Baldev Krishan. On 14th June, 1983, Aman Behl son of Baldev Krishan filed application in each suit under O.1, R.10 of the Code seeking to be impleaded as defendant thereto. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court. In one case, the revision has become time barred and, therefore, no revision has been filed. So it is only in the other suit No. 107 of 1983, which was filed by Aruna Kansal, that the revision petition challenging the order has been filed by Aman Behl in this Court.

3. Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, has convassed that the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in not allowing the application and adding the petitioner as defendant to the suit. Sub-rule (2) of R.10 of O.1 of the Code, which is relevant to the controversy is in the following terms :

"(2) Court may strike out or add parties; The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added :"

4. The judicial consensus in regard to the power that sub-r. (2) of R.10 of O.1 of the Code envisages with the Court is that the plaintiff being dominus litis, the Court would not add a party to the suit against his wishes unless the person wanting to be joined or the Court proposes to join suo motu is a person, who ought to have been there as a party to the suit i.e. the proposed party is a necessary party to the suit or his presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

5. The question that falls for consideration therefore is as to whether in the present case the co-parcener in question is a necessary party or his presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Obviously, as to whether a person who is seeking to be added as a party to the suit is a necessary party or not or whether his presence is necessary to enable the C