In a suit for specific performance filed by the present

respondent No.1 as a plaintiff in O.S.No.9417/2006, on the

file of the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, at

Bangalore (District Bangalore), (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as <the Trial Court=), the present petitioner filed

I.A.No.16 under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as <the CPC=), seeking his impleadment as

defendant No.7. The said application came to be rejected

by the order of the Trial Court dated 30-03-2017.

Aggrieved by the same, the impleading applicant (petitioner

herein) in the Trial Court has filed the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument

submitted that, the present petitioner being the legatee

4

under

the

Will

executed

by

the

alleged

vendor

-

Sri G. Krishna Raju, who died on 27-02-1998, is a proper

and necessary party in the suit.

3. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the Trial

Court, has filed his Statement of Objections, opposing the

application, contending that a similar attempts have been

made by the present petitioner in various litigations

including in R.F.A.No.1327/2003 which was pending before

this

Court.

However,

his

attempt

in

the

said

R.F.A.No.1327/2003 to get himself impleaded came to be

rejected.

However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has

remained absent, as such, no argument was addressed by

the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6

submitted that, he is supporting the case of the petitioner,

in which connection, he has filed his 8no objection9 memo in

the Trial Court.

5

5. Admittedly, the alleged Agreement of Sale is

between Sri. G. Krishna Raju and the plaintiff (respondent

No.1 herein). The defendant No.1 is said to be the wife of

late Sri. G. Krishna Raju and defendants No.2 to 5 are said

to be the children of late Sri. G. Krishna Raju. The present

petitioner, as an impleading applicant has only stated that,

the said Sri. G. Krishna Raju, the original vendor under the

Agreement

for

Sale,

has

left

a

Will

dated

26-08-1996, bequeathing the said property in his favour.

As such, as a legatee of the said Will and consequently as a

probate holder, he is the proper and necessary party in the

suit instituted by the first respondent herein.

6. The Trial Court, observing that, since the lis is

between the plaintiff and the other defendants, the plaintiff

is required to establish that he is entitled for the specific

performance of the contract and it is for him to prove, has

rejected the application of the petitioner herein.

7. Our Hon9ble Apex Court, in the case of Hari Mohan

Sharma and another Vs. Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and

6

others reported in (2019) 12 Supreme Court Cases 412, in

a suit for specific performance, where an impleading

applicant has filed his application under Order I, Rule 10(2)

of the CPC, was pleased to observe that, in a suit for

specific performance, it is the plaintiff, who, as dominus

litis, has the freedom to choose as to who shall be the

defendants in his suit. Further, taking the similar view, in

other context, but in a different circumstance, the Hon9ble

Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran

Kant Robinson and others reported in AIR 2019 Supreme

Court 3577 was pleased to observe that, in a suit for

specific performance of the contract, the third party or a

stranger to a contract are not necessary parties and cannot

be added in the suit for specific performance of the

contract.

8. In the instant case, admittedly, the case of the

plaintiff is that, he has an Agreement for Sale with original

vendor - Sri. G.Krishna Raju, who, according to the plaintiff,

is succeeded by defendants 1 to 5 in the Trial Court. Thus,

7

the lis is between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5.

However, the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board is also

arraigned as defendant No.6, in view of the alleged