In a suit for specific performance of a contract, a third party claiming independent rights based on a separate agreement is neither a necessary nor a proper party, and cannot be impleaded against the plaintiff's will, as the plaintiff is the dominus litis.

Order on Board

Heard.

1. The present petition has been filed against the order order dated 30/09/2024 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/2023 by the Third District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. whereby the application filed by Respondent No.2 has been allowed and he was directed to be implead as Respondent No.2 in the Suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit for specific performance of contract has been preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial Court against the Defendant/Respondent No.1. It is submitted in the civil suit that an agreement was executed on 07/01/2020 for sale of her land for total consideration of Rs.18,20,000/-. The said property was bearing Khasra No.146/2026, area 0.0574 Hectare, which has been appended as Schedule -A annexed with the plaint. He would further submit that the application filed by the Respondent No.2 has been allowed by the learned trial Court holding that the Respondent No.2 would be the proper and necessary party as the agreement was also executed in his favour by the Defendant No.1. He would next contend that Respondent No.2 has no right or title over the property and he is claiming his independent right by virtue of an agreement executed on 09/02/2011 in his favour. He would next submit that Respondent No.2 is also prosecuting a civil suit No.235A /2024 before the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, for his independent right of specific performance of the contract on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 09/02/2011, therefore, he cannot be impleaded in the present suit. He would lastly submit that under the circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside and the instant petition may be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that in order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings the impleadment of Respondent No.2 is necessary in the suit filed by the petitioner and he would also submit that in the suit filed by the Respondent No.2 before the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. bearing Civil Suit No.235A/2024 wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as Defendant No.2. Thus, the rights claimed by the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are directly overlapping and interconnected, and any adjudication in absence of Respondent No. 2 would result in conflicting and inconsistent decrees. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor proper party is wholly erroneous. He would lastly submit that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the application and has ordered for impleading Respondent No.2 as Defendant No.2 in the civil suit. He would lastly submit that the instant petition devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

5. The plaintiff has pleaded in the suit that the suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement dated 07/01/2020 executed exclusively between the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent No. 1. The lis is thus confined to the contractual obligations inter se the parties to the agreement. Respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for specific performance, only the parties to the contract or their legal representatives are necessary parties. A third party, claiming independent or subsequent rights, cannot be permitted to enlarge the scope of the suit. The petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent No. 2, and no adjudication in the present suit is required qua respondent No. 2. Therefore, his presence is wholly unnecessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. The learned trial Court has failed to consider that mere existence of an agreement to sell or any alleged int