1. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to assail rejection of an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC preferred by the petitioner contending that they are party to an agreement to sale executed on 28.12.2012 in respect of the suit property in regard to which litigation in shape of Second Appeal No. 120/10 is pending.

2. The trial Court found that the said agreement to sell dated 28.12.2012 though related to the suit property in the instant suit but since the said agreement has not transferred any right in favour of the petitioner, the application for impleadment was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if they are not impleaded as party, their rights would be jeopardÁed as they have entered into agreement to sale in respect of the said suit property. Reliance is placed on the decision of apex Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, to contend that a person want to be impleaded as a party may not have any subsisting right or interest over the suit property but if he establishes that he is likely to acquire interest therein in future, his impleadment becomes necessary.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the decision of apex Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 contends that mere exception as to of likelihood of conveyance, however well founded, does not create any interest on the party. It is submitted that discretion vested with the trial Court under Order 1 rule 10 is wide enough and no jurisdictional error is vested in the impugned order as the same is attended with cogent reasons.

5. Before proceedings ahead, it would be appropriate to produce few paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 in which after considering three judges bench decision in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, the apex Court held thus :

13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order I rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below :

“10. (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."

14. The said provision makes it clear that a Court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the Court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person