A subsequent purchaser of property under an agreement to sell is not a necessary or proper party to a suit for specific performance of an earlier agreement to sell.

, J.

1. This revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Sec.115, Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Fazilka, who permitted Shri J. R. Aggarwal, an Advocate of Jullundur, to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is also an Advocate at Jallalabad.

2. It is alleged that Sat Narain, defendant-respondent 1, executed an agreement to sell a vacant plot of land situate in Jallalbad, district Ferozepur, in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner on 13th June, 1964, for an ostensible consideration of Rs.5,500/- out of which Rs.4,500/- were received by him in cash as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed after meeting the incidental expenses. It may be mentioned that the plot in question was an evacuee property which had been purchased by Sat Narain defendant at an auction sale by the had not obtained the sale certificate when the agreement to sell was entered into. The deed of conveyance by the Rehabilitation Department is supposed to have been executed in his favour on 27th December, 1968, and about two months before that, on 29th October, 1968, he is said to have entered into another contract for sale of the same property in favour of Shri J. R. Aggarwal and received Rs.5500/-.

3. On the failure of defendant Sat Narain to execute the sale-deed, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 26th February, 1969, for specific performance of the contract to sell as made in his favour on 13th June, 1964. During the pendency of the suit, Shri J. R. Aggarwal made an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Sec.151, Code of Civil Procedure, on 25th December, 1969, for being impleaded as a defendant, it being pleaded that his presence was necessary before the Court to enable it to effectively and firmly adjudicate on the questions involved in the suit. The trial Court by its order passed on 26th May, 1970, allowed the application and directed Shri Aggarwal to be brought on the record as a defendant hereinafter called as defendant 2. The sole basis for allowing the application of this defendant was that there was an agreement in his favour which rendered him a proper party to the suit, if not a necessary party, and that his presence would enable the Court to decide the question arising in the suit more effectively and firmly. It is this order that is now being challenged in the present revision petition.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is fit case where the revisional powers of this Court should be exercised in order to set aside the impugned order.

5. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for defendant 2, that no revision is competent and in support of his contention he relies upon three judgments of their Lordships of te Supreme court reported as Razia Begum V/s. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886; Chaube Jagdish Prasad V/s. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi, AIR 1959 SC 492; and Pandurang Dhondi Chougule V/s. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153. No doubt, as observed by their Lordships in Razia Begums case, the question of addition of parties under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally one of judicial discretion but it equally follows from these observations that there may be cases where the controversy centres around the power of the Court and, in such a case, a question of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which the expression is used in Sec.115 of the Code may arise. Judicial discretion has to be exercised for administering justice according to law and a capricious, perverse, unwarranted or unreasonable exercise thereof may in a particular case amount on the part of the Court to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity within the meaning of said Sec.115. This power is not intended to be so exercised as to lead to misjoinder of parties or to result in bri