ORDER:

This revision is filed questioning the order dated 02.02.2022 in I.A.No.511 of 2019 in O.S.No.113 of 2023 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti.

2. Brief facts of the case: The Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. While so, Respondent No.1 filed an application to implead himself as party defendant to the suit. As per the claim of the Respondent No.1, he had filed O.S.No.51 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti for recovery of money and the suit was decreed on 13.10.2003. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.26 of 2011 and the schedule property was brought to sale. The Respondent No.1 participated in the sale with the permission of the Court and became the successful bidder and the sale was knocked down in his favour for a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- on 30.04.2013 and the sale was confirmed on 27.10.2017 and the same was referred to the Sub-Registrar, Thottambedu on 28.11.2017 for making necessary entries in the register. As the Sub-Registrar, Thottambedu did not register the property, the Respondent made his enquiry and was informed of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.201 of 2016.

3. It was in that context, Respondent No.1 filed the above application. Though the Petitioner opposed the same, the trial Court allowed the I.A.

vide impugned orders. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri A.Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the Petitioner and SriO.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

5. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the plaintiff, who has filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale is the dominus litis and he cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. He placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and others, [2019 (5) ALD (SC) 166] to substantiate his plea.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that he had purchased the property through Court auction and being a bona fide purchaser, his right to enjoy the schedule property is being affected in view of the present suit. It is his further contention that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have colluded only to defeat the auction in favour of the Respondent No.1, the present suit was filed.

7. Reasoning: The Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) specifies persons against whom the relief can be sought by the plaintiff and Section 19 (b) of the Act provides for enforcement of the decree of specific performance against a subsequent transferee to the contract, except a transferee, who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contractor. In this case, Respondent No.1 seeks to come on record as he is a bona fide purchaser of the scheduled property in the auction.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Gurmit Singh Bhatia’s case (1 supra) held that plaintiff is dominus litus in a suit for specific performance and he cannot be compelled to add parties against his wish. It was also observed that non-adding of parties is at the risk of plaintiff. The paragraph 5.6 of the said judgment is extracted below:

5.6. Therefore, considering the decision of this Court in Kasturi [Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733], the appellant cannot be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract between the original plaintiffs and original Defendant 1 and in a suit for specific performance of the contract to which the appellant is not a party and that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

10. In view of the above cited judgment and Section 19 (b) of the Act, interest of the Respondent needs to be protected from any mischief. The