The court reaffirmed that only necessary and proper parties can join a suit for specific performance, preventing expansion of its scope.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order (Annexure P-7) dated 6.9.2018 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Satna in M.J.C. No.9/2011.

2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing No. 25-A/2010 against defendants/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claiming relief of specific performance of agreements dated 26.5.2006. The defendants/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 proceeded ex-parte. The trial Court passed ex parte judgment and decree (Annexure P-1) dated 9.5.2011 directing defendant/respondent No.2 Narad Muni Tiwari to execute registered sale deed within two months, failing which the Court shall execute the same.

3. Defendant/respondent No. 2 filed an application bearing MJC No.

9/2014 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree, which was dismissed by Third Additional District Judge, Satna vide order dated 1.2.2017. Defendant/respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 1.2.2017 in appeal (M.A. No. 1030/2017) before this Court, which is pending.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, respondent No.1/plaintiff a n d defendant/respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement and filed compromise application before this Court. This Court vide order dated 11.7.2018 sent the compromise application to the trial Court for recording the statement of both the parties.

5. The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC stating that he has purchased property, which is the subject matter of civil suit, by three separate sale deeds dated 28.3.2011, therefore, he may be impleaded as a party in the case. Plaintiff filed reply to the aforesaid application. Learned executing Court rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 vide impugned order dated 6.9.2018 on the ground that this Court has remitted the matter for recording the statement on compromise, hence this application is not maintainable.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the suit property vide three sale deeds dated 28.3.2011, therefore, he is a necessary party in the case and the agreement entered into between the parties in unlawful.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the decisions of Panne Khushali and another Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and another reported in 1975 SCC OnLine MP 28; Kanchan Singh Kushwah Vs. Abdul Hanif S/o Abdul Saleem and others reported in 2014 (3) MPLJ 456 and Khemchand Sahu Vs. Chhingelal Rai reported in 2008 (2) MPHT 184 (DB) to submit that in a suit for specific performance, person claiming independent title or challenging the agreement of sale for one reason or the other cannot be allowed to be joined in the suit and thereby to enlarge the scope of the suit for specific performance. It is further submitted that strangers to the contract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant (vendor) contending that they are the co-owners of the contracted property are neither necessary nor proper party and are, therefore, not entitled to be joined as parties to the suit.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. It is clear from the record that respondent No.1/Smt.Draupadi Shukla filed civil suit against respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely, Narad Muni Tiwari and State of M.P. claiming relief of specific performance of agreement dated 26.5.2006. On 09.5.2011. The trial Court has passed ex parte decree against Defendant-Narad Muni Tiwari to