In a suit for specific performance, third parties with vested interests are necessary parties and cannot be withdrawn without justification.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 29.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2024 and I.A.No.101 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2014 by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Sri P. Sajan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.100 of 2024 under Order 23 Rules 1 of CPC seeking Court to grant leave to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos.7 to 17 and he also filed I.A.No.101 of 2024 under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) of CPC , to strike off issue Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 framed in the suit.

4. In I.A.No.100 of 2024, the petitioner seeks specific performance of an agreement of sale and a perpetual injunction regarding the suit property. Defendants 7 to 17 were included in the suit but have not filed any counterclaims asserting title or possession. The petitioner does not wish to proceed against them, as they are not parties to the relevant agreement (Ex.A2) and the suit does not aim to declare title or seek consequential relief. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the defendants are neither proper nor necessary parties, and the Court cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the pleadings under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. The counter affidavit in I.A.No.100 of 2024, the respondents stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 colluded with the petitioner to fabricate the agreement upon which the suit is based. They claim that neither respondent Nos.1 to 4 nor their vendors have any rights to the suit property, and that Neerla Balamallu and his vendee, Sardar Inder Singh, also lack any title. Consequently, the children of Sardar Inder Singh i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot alienate or engage in any transactions regarding the property, rendering the alleged agreement of sale illegal. The respondents assert that neither they themselves nor their father were in possession of the property; instead, respondent Nos.7 to 17 and other plot owners have been in possession and enjoying the property. To protect their rights, respondent Nos.7 to 17 filed a petition to implead, which was allowed after hearing both sides. They also noted that many plot holders have built residential houses on their purchased plots within the suit property. The order dated 02.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.20104 of 2005 against the petitioner became final stating that no appeal was filed regarding the said order. Many other suits concerning the property are still pending. The respondents submitted that the petition is filed with an ulterior motive to obtain a consent decree and as such, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. I.A.No.101 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner to strike of the issues Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 framed in the suit.

7. The trial Court dismissed both the petitions and observing that there are no merits in the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed for specific performance and consequential injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Upon death of defendant Nos.5 and 6, the question of granting an injunction no longer arises. Moreover, as the dominus litis, the plaintiff has the right to select the parties to the lis. The trial court erred by allowing the impleading of defendant Nos.7 to 17, who are not parties to the sale agreement and have no standing in the suit for specific performance.

9. It is submitted that the plaintiff is always at liberty to withdraw the suit and hence ought to have withdrawn the suit as against the defendant Nos.7 to 17 and defendant Nos.7 to 17 cannot be allowed to canvas their case in a suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner and defendant Nos.5 a