IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 938 of 2025 Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo alias Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, aged about 20 years, S/o Late Sri Dilip Nath Shahdeo, R/o Flat no. 4-A, Rashmi Heigh Apartment, Itki Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. -Pandara O.P., Sukhdevnagar, District Ranchi, 834005, Jharkhand, Bharat; Permanently R/o Maharaja Chhotelal Banglow, Opposite Panchaiti Raj Building, OTC Ground, Hubsi Camp, Hehal, P.O.- Pandara, O.P., Sukhdevnagar, District-Ranchi, 834005, Jharkhand, Bharat ..... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Law, Department of Law (Justice), Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand, PIN-

834004

2. Sri Madhusudan Agrawal, S/o Sri Jugal Kishore Agrawal, R/o House No.

4/164, Sukhdev Nagar, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District, Ranchi, 834005, Jharkhand, Bharat.

3. Sri Pawan Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Anand Swaroop Gupta, R/o P.P. Compound, IIIrd Street, P.O. G. P.O., P.S. Hindpiri, District - Ranchi, 834001, Jharkhand, Bharat. … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranay Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP-I ------

Order No. 04 / Dated : 06.11.2025.

1. This civil misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

21.05.2025 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 543/ 2024 arising out of Title Suit No. 516/2024 by which a petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 has been rejected. Further, prayer is made for issuance of mandamus to the Civil Judge, Ranchi to consider afresh and allow the petition dated

10.10.2023 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.

2. Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 48/2006 which was renumbered as O.S. No. 1943/2019, which was again renumbered as O.S. No. 516/2024 impleading Sri Dilip Shahdeo @ Dilip Nath Shahdeo (since dead) his wife Smt. Rupa Shahdeo for specific performance of contract dated 16.12.2003 with respect to schedule property measuring 16 acres under RS Khata No. 176, Thana Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. During pendency of the suit, Dilip Nath Shahdeo died and was substituted by the present petitioner- Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court, in terms of the agreement dated 16.12. 2003 to sell the land, Rs. 41,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed by the petitioner on 10.10.2023 to implead as many as 73 parties as defendants in the suit on the ground that they were residing in the suit property and were necessary parties to the suit.

4. Learned Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the suit was at its penultimate stage and was posted for argument and the proposed defendants were not necessary parties.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced, the question boils down to the issue that who are the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of contract?

6. The law is settled in this regard that the parties who enter into an agreement to sell are the necessary parties. In the event of death of the parties to the agreement, right to sue survives against the heirs and descendants who become necessary party. The plaintiff is the dominus litis in a suit and merely because third parties are residing in the suit property, will not make them a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of contract which is limited to the performance of contract between the parties. Necessary parties in the suit for specific performance are those who are directly involved in the contract or whose rights are affected by the decree. Purpose of a suit for specific performance is to enforce the contract itself, not to resolve third party title for possession issues. The Court has consistently held that adding any third party who is