In a suit for specific performance, a third party asserting a fair semblance of title or interest in the suit property may be impleaded as a proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, even if they are not a party to the contract.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.1314 of 2025 in O.S.No.201 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The petitioner is respondent no.1/plaintiff, respondent no.1 is the petitioner/third party and respondent no.2 is the respondent no.2/defendant in I.A.No. 1314 of 2025 in O.S.No.201 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. In the suit filed by the Revision Petitioner in O.S.No.201 of 2024 for specific performance of agreement of sale against respondent no.2/ defendant, the respondent no.1/third party to the suit filed petition vide I.A.No.1314 of 2025 under Order-1, Rule-10 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of this Court to come on record as defendant no.2, contending that he is the absolute owner of the property covered under the specific performance suit and the defendant has no right and title over the plaint schedule property, which originally was purchased by maternal grandmother of respondent no.1 under registered sale deed and later executed Will bequeathing the said property to respondent no.1. The plaintiff resisted the said claim by filing counter contending that respondent no.1 being a third party to the suit contract of sale, cannot be permitted to come on record, since the same would alter the character and scope of the present suit and he is neither a necessary nor a proper party for specific performance suit. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, allowed the petition. The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1/third party/proposed defendant no.2 and Sri B.Sai Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2/defendant no.2.

5. Sri G.Ram Goal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court and grounds of revision petition would contend that the petitioner being a third party to the agreement to sell is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit for specific performance. He would further contend that addition of a third party to the suit would convert the suit into a different character which can never be permitted and the revision petitioner being dominus litus cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not seek any relief, however, the trial court upon erroneous view of the matter passed the impugned order permitting a third party to come on record as one of the defendants thereby changed the character of the suit. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition setting aside the orders impugned.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & others, 2005 (6) SCC 733.

6. On the other hand, Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1/proposed defendant, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court would contend that the petitioner, who claims title over the property, is a proper and necessary party to the suit for effective adjudication of the lis as to whether the defendant to the suit is entitled to execute any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. He would further contend t