- (1.) THE petitioner seeks to revise an order by which a stranger to the contract which she seeks to specifically enforce has been impleaded as a party. The petitioner suggests that as dominus litis it is her prerogative both to choose her defendants and to limit the scope of the adjudication in the suit.
(2.) THE two key aspects that found favour with the Court below need to be noticed from the impugned order: ". . . the petitioner [the applicant in the Order 1 Rule 10 (2) application] had purchased (a) part of the schedule property in the year 2002 and 2004 and entered into an agreement for purchase of the schedule property by agreement dt. 19. 11. 02 with the defendant Nos. 1, 2, and others. . . " "i also hold my view that in a suit for specific performance by a purchaser, another purchaser of the same property is a necessary party. "
(3.) ON appreciating the fact as first quoted, the Court below came to the conclusion next quoted above, though the wording of the legal proposition may have been wider than necessary.;