A.R. SHARADAMMA Vs. KRISHNEGOWDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16-10-2014 passed on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 259 of 2009. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 259 of 2009. The suit is instituted seeking for a judgment and decree of specific performance against the defendant therein. In the pending suit, the applicants have filed I.A. No. 6 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking that they be impleaded as additional defendants to the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Court below on considering the same has allowed the application by the order impugned herein.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order would contend that the Court below was not justified in permitting the third parties to be impleaded as parties to a suit seeking judgment and decree of specific performance. It is his case that in a suit for specific performance only the parties to the agreement would be the appropriate parties and no other person could be impleaded. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Others, 2005 AIR(SC) 2813 and in the case of P.C. Varghese v. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi and Others, 2005 8 SCC 486 .

(3.) In the light of the contention put forth, I have perused the order impugned and also the petition papers. At the outset, having taken note of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the position of law is well-settled that a person who is not a party to the agreement need not be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance. The consideration in that regard is that a stranger to the agreement on the property should not be made a party to the suit for specific performance.