JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 29th March, 1990 passed by the District Judge, Merta whereby he allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code of one Ram Niwas for impleading him as defendant in the suit for specific performance. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit on 25.2.86 for specific performance and injunction against the non-petitioners no. 1 to 6 with the allegation that the father of defendant no. 1 and 2 Ganpat Sunar purchased house and its adjoining Nohra at Metra and the Patta dated 23.12.1937 stands in the name of Ganpat Sunar who also obtained a registered sale deed of the Nohra dated 22.12.1965 from Municipal Board, Merta. It is alleged that due to financial constraints of the non- petitioner no. 1 and 2 their aunty Smt. Bhanwari Bai defendant no. 3 took them to Madras and brought them up. Defendant no. 1 Mithalal and defendant no. 2 Gopal have agreed to sell the house and its adjoining Nohra in favour of plaintiff- petitioners for Rs. 40,000/- on 29.1.86. The transaction took place at Madras in presence of defendants no. 3 to 5 and the mediator defendant no. 6. It is further alleged that defendant no. I and 2 failed to execute the sale-deed though possession, key and original title deed were handed over at the time of payment of earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- to the non- petitioner defendants no. 1 and 2. Defendant no. 1 to 5 did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them and defendant no. 6 also did not file written statement and the case was fixed on 9.11.89 for recording exparte evidence of petitioners. 3. On 9.11.89 Ram Niwas moved an application under Order I Rule 10 C. P. C. alleging that Bhanwari Bai defendant no. 3 her son defendant no. 4 and her husband defendant no. 5 Kishanlal on 21.11.85 agreed to sell the disputed house and Nohra for Rs. 32,000/- but ultimately on 18.2.86 the defendants no. 3 to 5 increased it for Rs. 41,000/- and since they are not executing agreement in spite of the fact that advance money of Rs. 3 her son defendant no. 4 and her husband defendant no. 5 Kishanlal on 21.11.85 agreed to sell the disputed house and Nohra for Rs. 32,000/- but ultimately on 18.2.86 the defendants no. 3 to 5 increased it for Rs. 41,000/- and since they are not executing agreement in spite of the fact that advance money of Rs. 7,000/- has already been taken, therefore, he has to file a suit on 1.5.1986 for specific performance and also for declaration against all the defendants including petitioners of this suit Joharimal and Dharamchand of the suit in the District Court, Merta which was numbered as 25/1986. The application was resisted by the petitioners. 4. The learned Judge after hearing the parties with a view to avoid multiplicity of the suits allowed the application of Ram Niwas for impleading him as party vide order dated 21.3.1990. Dissatisfied with the order of the Dist. Judge the petitioners have come up in revision. 5. I Have heard Mr. H. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. R. Nagori, learned counsel for non- petitioner no. 7 Ram Niwas. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that a stranger cannot be impleaded as party in the suit for specific performance and the order is without jurisdiction as it changed the nature of the suit and in support of his contention he has referred to decision in Panne Khushali and anr. Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and anr. Reported in A.I.R. 1976. M. P.-148 in which question referred was "whether in a suit for specific performance for contract of a sale, a third person intervener, who contends that the suit property is a joint property of the applicant and he is also the co-owner of that property would be made a party (defendant)." The answer by the full Bench was that "strangers" to a contract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant (vender) contending that they are the co-owners of the contracted property are neither necessary nor proper party and are, therefore, not entitled to be joined as a party to the suit. He has also relied on Krishanlal and others V. Tekchand and anr. Reported in AIR-1987 P.&H.-197 and further on Huson and Robinson Vs. Registrar and Asstt. Registrar of Joint Stock Co. Madras Reported in AIR 1918 Madras 681. 7. A perusal of above referred cases cited by Mr. He has also relied on Krishanlal and others V. Tekchand and anr. Reported in AIR-1987 P.&H.-197 and further on Huson and Robinson Vs. Registrar and Asstt. Registrar of Joint Stock Co. Madras Reported in AIR 1918 Madras 681. 7. A perusal of above referred cases cited by Mr. H. C. Jain will show that they are not applicable, as these cases are of co-owners of the contract property and further prior to the amendment of Section 115 C. P. C. and no jurisdictional error involved in these cases. 8. Mr. R. R. Nagori, has contended that revision is not maintainable as it does not involve question of jurisdictional error. Mr. R.R. Nagori, relied on a decision of this Court in Gouri Shanker Vs. Jabbar Singh Reported in RLW-1984-51 = 1984 RLR 316 . 9. It is pertinent to note that suit no. 10/86 filed by the petitioner against defendants no. I to 6 and in civil suit no. 25/86 filed by Ram Niwas against the same persons, Ram Niwas has also made petitioners of this case as party with his vender Mithalal. Therefore, taking into consideration the object of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 C. P. C. it is clear that Ram Niwas is directly interested in the subject matter which is the same property of the two litigations and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court has not exercised its discretion judiciously in impleading Ram Niwas as party. In the present case petitioner has claimed decree for specific performance against the defendants no. 1 and 2 or against all, including Bhanwari Bai defendant No. 3 and in a suit filed by Ram Niwas, he has claimed decree for specific performance from Bhanwari Bai and has also made defendants no. 1 and 2 as a party, therefore, Ram Niwas is also an interested party and is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. 10. Therefore, if the order is allowed to stand it would not amount to failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. 11. The result in view of the above discussion is that the impugned order does not call for any interference under section 115 Civil Procedure Code so the revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******