1. Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale — Third party sought impleadment claiming right in suit property. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J.
Vivekananda Vidya Samstha Society - Petitioner
Vs.
Shaik Khaja W/o. Nanne Saheb And Others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No: 5029 Of 2012
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala
A stranger to a contract cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance under Order I Rule 10 CPC if it alters the suit's nature or violates Section 15(a) of the Specific Relief Act, unless they are a necessary or proper party.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 15(a) - Impleadment of party - Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale - A stranger to the agreement for sale cannot be added as a party to a suit for specific performance as it would enlarge the scope of the suit and convert it into a suit for title and possession, which is not permissible in law (Paras 6, 7).
(B) Necessary and Proper Party - A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed; a proper party is someone whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved - The plaintiff, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to add a party against their wishes unless the proposed party proves they are necessary or proper - The mere objective of avoiding multifarious litigation is not a sufficient legal basis to implead a party who is not a party to the contract and has no direct legal interest in the specific controversy of the suit (Paras 9, 10).
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement for sale. During the pendency of the suit, a third party applied to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming a share in the suit schedule property based on inheritance laws. The trial court allowed the impleadment application on the grounds of avoiding multifarious litigation. The plaintiff challenged the order in revision, contending that the proposed party was a stranger to the contract and neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The trial court failed to assign valid reasons for impleading the third party and relied solely on the ground of preventing multiple litigations. There was no material to show that the third party's rights were infringed within the scope of the contractual dispute between the original parties.
Issues: Whether a person who is not a party to a contract of sale can be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for specific performance on the grounds of avoiding multifarious litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: In suits for specific performance, the controversy is restricted to the contract between the parties. Under Section 15(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the scope of the suit cannot be widened to include strangers to the contract, as doing so would change the character of the suit. A party cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they meet the twin tests of being a necessary or proper party: having a direct legal interest in the controversy and the inability of the court to pass an effective decree in their absence.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; Order dated 14.08.2012 set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- contract
-
property law
- muslim inheritance (Para 3)
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff argued stranger to contract cannot be impleaded; applicant claimed collusion and claimed share under Muslim inheritance law. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Trial court allowed impleadment without finding applicant as necessary or proper party, solely to avoid multifarious litigation. (Para 10 )
4. A stranger without privity of contract is neither a necessary nor proper party in a suit for specific performance. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Civil Revision Petition allowed; trial court order set aside; trial to conclude within six months. (Para 11 )
6. Can a stranger to an agreement for sale be impleaded as a party in a suit for specific performance?
No, a stranger without privity of contract is neither a necessary nor proper party and cannot be impleaded against plaintiff's wishes. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. What is the distinction between a necessary party and a proper party in a civil suit?
A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed; a proper party's presence enables complete adjudication but is not essential. (Para 9 )
8. Can a court compel a plaintiff to add a party against their wishes in a suit for specific performance?
No, the plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to add a party who is not a necessary or proper party. (Para 9 )
9. Is 'avoiding multifarious litigation' a sufficient ground to allow impleadment of a third party?
No, avoiding multifarious litigation alone is insufficient; the applicant must first be shown to be a necessary or proper party. (Para 10 )
10. Can a third party claiming a right in suit property seek impleadment in a specific performance suit?
No, such a party's remedy lies in a separate suit; impleadment would change the nature of the suit and is impermissible. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
ORDER :
BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J.
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.1019 of 2010 in O.S.No.120 of 2010 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in allowing the petition seeking to implead the 1st respondent herein as 2nd defendant in the suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notices were served on the respondents, none entered appearance.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010 was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 28.03.2003 executed by the 2nd respondent herein in favour of the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said suit, the 1st respondent herein filed the above said application before the trial Court claiming right in the suit schedule property and alleging that the said suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in collusion with the 2nd respondent for unlawful gain and without any manner of right over the property. It was alleged that the suit schedule property was originally belongs to Syed Khatunbi wife of Nabisa. That the said Khatunbi was her mother-in-law. Shaik Ayub is her nephew and the 1st defendant in the suit is the son of Shaik Yunus who is the brother of late Shaik Ayub. The schedule mentioned property was declared to be the property of late Shaik Ayub from his ancestors and the said Ayub died unmarried and intestate leaving behind his entire family members as his legal heirs. It was further contended that he was looked after by the 1st respondent herein, he orally promised to give a share in the said property as per Shariyat law as such she is the distant kindred of class IV and claims to have 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property as per the inheritance of Muslim law.
4. The said application filed by the 1st respondent was resisted by the plaintiff denying the allegations of collusion and the right claimed by the 1st respondent herein and further contended that the suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale and she is not a proper and necessary party to the said suit as the same is based on a contract between the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 14.08.2012, allowed the petition and the operative portion of the order reads as under:
“As per the averments of the petition affidavit, it is the contention of plaintiff that the proposed respondents 2 to 11 obtained documents in their favour from the 1st respondent regarding the schedule properties and the said litigation only to create and the said documents are nominal documents. To avoid multifarious litigation, it is just and necessary to add them as parties to the suit. On perusal of the material on record, the proposed respondents R-2 to R-11 are necessary parties to the suit litigation since some registered sale deeds executed in their favour By 1 defendant and to avoid multifarious litigation, it is just and necessary to allow the petition in the interest of justice. On the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the 1st respondent, if the petition is allowed land it is open to the both the parties to establish their respective contention to support their case. I do not found any valid reason to dismiss the petition.”
5. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent herein filed an application under Order I Rule 10 seeking to implead her as a party defendant in the suit without asserting any right or title in the suit schedule property and also without there being any material to establish even a semblance of right in the suit schedule property. He further contended that the learned Judge without considering the fact that the suit was filed basing on a contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein and the said application for
