( 1 ) THE plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 filed suit (No. 56-A/ 69) in the Court of the second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for the specific performance of a contract, contending that the non-applicant No. 2 had entered into an agreement with him for the sale of the contracted! house to turn, but has failed to complete the sale and prayed for a decree directing the non-applicant No. 2 to complete the sale by executing and setting registered a sale-deed in his favour. The intervener applicants made an application for being joined as a party to the suit contending that the suit property is a coparcenery property and they as coparceners are the co-owners of it; the non- applicant No. 2 had neither a right to enter into an agreement for sale, nor has a right to sell it, nor any such act of his can bind their shares in it.

( 2 ) THE trial Court rejected the application, holding that the applicants cannot be added as parties to the suit against which the present revision was filed in this court. In view of the apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court in, roopkishore v Tarabai, Civil Revn. No. 473 of 1967, decided on March 3, 1970 =' (1970 MPWR (SN) 132 ). by Krishnan. J. and in Gananandrao v. Babulal. Civil revn. No. 351 of 1967. decided on May 3, 1968 = (1970 MPWR (SN) 69 ). by bhar-gava, J. , Shiv Dayal, J. (as he then was --now Chief Justice) before whom the revision came up for hearing, referred the matter for decision by a larger bench. The matter was referred to the Division Bench (of which myself was also the Member) which also referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench and hence. the matter has come up before the Full Bench,

( 3 ) IN view of the controversy involved, the question for decision by this Bench is formulated thus :

"whether in a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale, instituted by a Durchaser against the vendor, a stranger to the contract, who, contending that the contracted property is a joint family property, of which he is also the co-owner, wants to intervene in the suit, is entitled to be added as a party. "

( 4 ) IF there is a statutory provision specifically providing for the parties to be joined in a particular lis unquestionably all those parties are necessarv to be joined. To illustrate, the Representation of the People Act. 1951 contains section 82 which provides who are the persons who should be joined as parties to the petition. In absence of any such specific provision, the Court has to determine with reference to the provisions contained in the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The provisions in the Code relating to joining of parties are contained in Order 1. Rules 1, 3 and 10. The provisions of Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 make it permissible to join more than one plaintiff and defendant in a suit respectively. The parties who can be joined as plaintiffs and defendants in a suit under these rules respectively are persons in whom and against whom anv right to relief in respect of or arisine out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly severally or in the alternative, where if such persons were uarties in separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. On a bare reading of these rules of Order 1, it is axiomatic that in the instant case, the provisions of Order 1, Rules 1 and 3 are not attracted. Then comes Rule 10 of Order 1. relevant portion of which is quoted hereinbelow under which, the court has the jurisdiction or power of substituting adding or striking out of party to a suit

"suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the rea