Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 17.10.2015 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short 'the learned court below') whereby learned court below has rejected their application under Order I Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC for being impleaded as party -defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract laid by the first respondent -plaintiff. The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that respondent -plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the second respondent -defendant seeking enforcement of agreement to sale dated 24.12.2009 allegedly executed by the second respondent -defendant in favour of the respondent -plaintiff for the suit property. It is, inter alia, averred in the suit that second respondent agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent -plaintiff which was purchased by his father Ratanlal Kathed in open auction and after death of his father having derived title as sole legal heir, he was authorised to alienate the property. In the agreement to sale, the terms and conditions including the consideration amount were also mentioned.
(2.) Petitioners -applicants having come to know about pendency of the suit made endeavour to be impleaded as party defendants and consequently laid an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 CPC. The recitals contained in the application reveal that as per petitioners, all of them have authorised Ratanlal Kathed to participate in the auction proceedings under taken by the District Collector, Bhilwara on 01.12.1984 and, therefore, on their behalf as their authorised representative and power of attorney, he has participated in the auction proceedings. After completion of auction, the properties as such were transferred in the names of petitioners and Ratanlal Kathed has not derived any right, title or interest pertaining to suit property. With these averments, the petitioners craved for being impleaded as party defendants with the positive assertion that respondent -plaintiff was having no right to alienate the property or to enter into an agreement to sale. It is also averred that petitioners' interests are very much involved in the property and, therefore, they are not only proper parties but also necessary parties.
(3.) The learned court below after hearing the rival parties and analysing the legal position within the four corners of Order I Rule 10 CPC and the nature of the suit which was for specific performance of contract, declined their prayer. The learned court below in the impugned order has observed that in a suit for specific performance of contract, only the seller and the prospective purchaser are the necessary parties and no third party can stake its claim for being impleaded as a party to the litigation. In totality, while relying on some of the legal precedents, learned court below has concluded that petitioners are not proper parties to the litigation much less necessary parties.;