JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J.
(1) This order dispose of I.A. 10620/93, an application filed on behalf of certain intervener seeking leave to be joined as party to the suit.
(2) The plaintiff M/s Ganga Bishan & Co. a partnership firm has filed this suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of the suit property impleading defendant No.1 Dr. (Mrs) Sita Bhateja's Nursing Home Trust and Shri Mohinder Singh the Managing Trustee of the Trust as defendants. The suit filed on 29.11.1998 (refiled on 1.12.88) is proceeding and is amidst hearing.
(3) On 10.12.1993, Seva Singh, the applicant has approached this Court by filing an application I.A. 10620/93 under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. He alleges himself to be in possession of a part of the suit premises for about 6-7 years prior to the filing of the application and running a Car Repair & Service Station thereat. According to the applicant, he is having electric, water and telephone connections installed in his name at the premises. He apprehends forcible dispossession at the hands of the plaintiff and seeks to be joined as a party to the suit to protect his own interest.
(4) The application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff.
(5) A Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Punne Khushali vs. Jeewanlal clinches the issue. The law laid down therein is a complete answer to the prayer made by the intervener applicant. The case before the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was also one filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract for sale. A stranger to the contract sought to be joined as a party to the suit. The full Bench held that the answering parties in a suit for specific performance to a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives, as also the person who had purchased the property from the vendor after the contract. Apart from this purpose, the scope of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale ought not be enlarged and the suit turned also into a suit raising issues between the parties to the contract and stranger to the contract. The full Bench further held that the rule of dominus litus applies to such a suit and the plaintiff cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight.
(6) The plaintiff in the present suit is not seeking any relief against the intervener. The question of title and or possession if any of the intervener applicant is not going to be adjudicated upon in the present suit. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
(7) For the foregoing reasons I.A. 10620/93 does not merit being allowed. It is rejected.