The necessity of impleading parties in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale is determined by whether their presence is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate and settle the questions involved in the case.

B.K. Rathi, J.

Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. THE respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale against the respondent No. 2. THE suit is pending since 1992. THE revisionists are minor daughters of respondent No. 2. They moved an application for impleadment through Kailash Chandra Sharma, their Nana as guardian as party under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. THE application has been rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the trial Court has wrongly rejected the application for the reason that the application has been moved by a person, who is not a guardian in accordance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 4, C. P. C.

3. FOR the sake of arguments even if the finding of the trial Court is against law the same is not material. The application for impleadment cannot be allowed as there is no ground to implead the revisionists as parties.

4. THE agreement of sale is between the respondents and the suit for specific performance has been filed on that basis by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2. THE question whether the revisionists or the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property is not relevant for the decision of the suit. THE title or the ownership of the property can not be decided in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists in support of the argument has also referred to the decision of Single Judge of this Court reported in Shitla Prasad and another v. Mata Swaroop and others, 1979 AWC 575. In this case was held that "simply because no relief could be granted to a person seeking impleadment in the suit, it cannot be argued that such a person cannot be impleaded in a suit as a defendant. What is to be seen is whether presence of a person seeking to be impleaded in the suit is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. "

5. THIS authority does not help to the revisionists because the presence of the revisionists is not necessary to enable the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the case.

6. THE revision is therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed. THE trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Revision dismissed.