STANGER TO CONTRACT CANNOT BE IMPLEADED IN SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF’S WISHES.

The Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) based on a sale agreement dated 07/01/2020 for land in District Sarguja

Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded, claiming he held a prior independent agreement for the same property dated 09/02/2011 and had filed a separate suit (Civil Suit No. 235A/2024) for its enforcement

The Trial Court allowed the impleadment on 30/09/2024, holding Respondent No. 2 to be a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

The Petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition

1. Whether a third party claiming an independent right to a property under a separate agreement to sell is a necessary or proper party in a suit for specific performance filed by another party

2. Whether the plaintiff can be compelled to implead a stranger to the contract against their wish when no relief is claimed against such stranger

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the addition of parties

Principle of dominus litis—that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and cannot be forced to implead a party they do not wish to fight unless required by law, as reinforced in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and Others (2020) 13 SCC 773

The two-fold test from Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, which establishes that a necessary party must have a right to relief regarding the same subject matter and their absence must prevent an effective decree

The Court reasoned that a suit for specific performance is strictly a contractual dispute regarding the enforceability of a specific agreement, readiness, and willingness

Respondent No. 2 was a "stranger to the contract" dated 07/01/2020

The Court observed that adding a third party claiming independent title would impermissibly enlarge the suit's scope from specific performance to a complex title dispute

Since the Petitioner sought no relief against Respondent No. 2 and a decree between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 would not legally bind Respondent No. 2, the latter's presence was not required for a complete adjudication of the specific contract in question

The Court found that Respondent No. 2's remedy lies in his own independent suit rather than intervening in the Petitioner’s litigation

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 30/09/2024, rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the original suit expeditiously without the inclusion of Respondent No. 2