JUDGMENT - Sirpurkar V.S., J.:—Rejection of an application filed under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 by strangers to the suit has given rise to this Civil Revision Application. Respondent No. 1 Shamrao Namdeorao Patil has filed a civil suit for specific performance against the original defendant Ganpati Kashiram Nawal. In this civil suit, a specific performance of the transaction of barter is being insisted upon by the plaintiff on the basis of an agreement dated 29-6-1982 between the plaintiffs and the defendant. In fact, both the plaintiff and the- defendants have put each other in possession of agricultural fields as per the transaction of barter and plaintiff claims to have made payment of Rs. 41,400/- towards the land. However, the defendant has avoided to execute the sale deed of his agricultural land and that gave rise to the filing of the civil suit which is registered as Special Civil Suit No. 153/1984. 2. The defendant, respondent No. 2 herein, has filed a written statement and has not disputed that the transaction of barter took place nor has he disputed the written agreement dated 29-6-1982. He also does not dispute the possession having been exchanged. The only exception that the defendant makes is to the adequacy of the amount of Rs. 41,400/-. The issues are struck on the basis of these pleadings alone. When the parties were to go to the trial on the basis of issues struck, two sons of the defendant, namely, Sanjiv s/o Ganpati Nawal and Prasad s/o Ganpati Nawal, filed an application under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 claiming therein that the suit property belonged to the joint Hindu family and, as such, both the applicants had their share, by birth, in such property. They, therefore, prayed that they should be added as the defendants in the suit since they are interested in the said property, holding a right, by birth, in the said property. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court necessitating the present revision. 3. Shri Nawandar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners, strenuously urged that the addition of the applicants Nos. 1 and 2/the present revision petitioners was absolutely essential in order that all the questions involved in the suit should be effectively and completely adjudicated. 3. Shri Nawandar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners, strenuously urged that the addition of the applicants Nos. 1 and 2/the present revision petitioners was absolutely essential in order that all the questions involved in the suit should be effectively and completely adjudicated. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that in any event the applicants have a right to challenge the alienation made by their father who was acting as a Karta on the ground that the said alienation was not for the benefit of estate and in that event there would be multiplicity of the proceedings, and in order to avoid the said multiplicity of the proceedings, the Court should have allowed the present two applicants to be joined as party defendants. 4. In support of his contention, Shri Nawandar relied on the two reported cases: (i) A.I.R.1943 Bom. 27, (Shivshankarppa v. Shivappa)1, and (ii) A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 25, (P.R. Nallatharnbi v. Raghavan)2. In order to understand the controversy, we will have to refer to the provisions of Order. I, Rule 10 under which the present application has been made. Rule 10 has been divided into five sub-rules wherein the only Rule relevant is Order I, Rule 10(2). The Rule is quoted : “The Court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” A plain reading of this sub-section will show that this sub-section is divided into two parts. While the first part of the sub-rule deals with the power of the Court to strike out unnecessary parties, the latter part deals with the power of the Court to add to the parties. While the first part of the sub-rule deals with the power of the Court to strike out unnecessary parties, the latter part deals with the power of the Court to add to the parties. However, before any party is to be added, the tests suggested by the language of the sub-rule are, (i) that such person ought to have been joined; and (ii) such person should be such whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. (Emphasis supplied). In short, the Court has power to add the defendant where, from the frame of the suit itself, the Court finds that it is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and decide all the questions which arise in the suit. The language is extremely clear and admits of no confusion. If a certain controversy is not involved in the suit, then for the decision of that controversy the Court shall not order addition of a party. The addition of the party will have to be weighed against the facts and the Controversies involved in the suit as it is. In the present case, the position is exactly reverse. The question as to whether the property is joint family property or not is not raised, from the issues or from the pleadings of the parties, which is an admitted position. Even the defendant, father of the present two applicants, has not taken that position. Under such circumstances, whether the property is a joint family property or not is not a question involved in the suit. At the most, by addition of these two applicants as the party defendants, that question may be raised by the pleadings of the added parties but that indeed is not the import of the section. The controversy already present in the suit cannot be allowed to be enlarged by addition of the parties to the dispute and, if this application is allowed, that is the only result which we would achieve. 5. Shri Nawandar relied upon a reported decision of this Court in A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 27 and more particularly, on the following observations : “No doubt in a suit for specific performance, the general rule is that a stranger to the contract cannot be sued upon it. 5. Shri Nawandar relied upon a reported decision of this Court in A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 27 and more particularly, on the following observations : “No doubt in a suit for specific performance, the general rule is that a stranger to the contract cannot be sued upon it. Only the parties to the contract are necessary and sufficient parties. But the general rule is subject to certain modifications. For instance, strangers are made parties as an exception to the rule in cases of novatio; in cases of interest arising under prior contract; and in cases where it is desirable to avoid multiplicity of suits as contemplated by Order I, Rule 1.” The facts in that cases are entirely different and, probably, Shri Nawandar is laying his stress upon the words 'multiplicity of the proceedings”. Shri Nawandar contends that the applicants in this case would be required to file a fresh suit in case they are not joined as patties and that would lead to the multiplicity of the proceedings. It is to be understood that the 'multiplicity of the proceedings' has been referred to in the ruling with reference to the provisions of Order I, Rule 1 which provides for the persons to be joined as the plaintiffs. The multiplicity as contemplated by the judgment, cited by Shri Nawandar, has, therefore, to be understood in terms of Order I, Rule 1 and that cannot be the case in the present situation. Apart from this, the question as to whether filing of the suit by strangers to the proceedings would amount to a multiplicity, would also be a relevant and necessary factor to be considered. If the applicants have a separate right to file the separate suit subject to the law and limitation, if any, then that cannot be termed as multiplicity of the proceedings because the right of the applicants herein is entirely independent of and separate from the controversy in the present suit. The ruling, therefore, is of no use to the applicants. 6. The other ruling i.e. A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 25, (P.R. Nallathambi v. V. Raghavan), provides that the persons whose interests would be affected by the litigation are entitled to come on record to, protect their interests when they are jeopardised by the persons already on record. The ruling, therefore, is of no use to the applicants. 6. The other ruling i.e. A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 25, (P.R. Nallathambi v. V. Raghavan), provides that the persons whose interests would be affected by the litigation are entitled to come on record to, protect their interests when they are jeopardised by the persons already on record. Apart from the fact that the controversy in the case was entirely different, the observations made therein cannot be read in isolation of the context thereof. The learned Judges of the Madras High Court have made the following observations : “It would be a travesty of justice to hold that a party who is bound by the result of a litigation, though not nominated as a party to the litigation, shall be denied an opportunity to draw the attention of the Court to some step, which seeks to prejudice his interests behind his back. In all such cases, it is the plain duty of the Court to implead the parties concerned either under Order I, Rule 10 or in exercise of its undoubted, inherent power under section 151, Civil Procedure Code.” There cannot be a dispute with this proposition. However, in the present case since the questions involved in the suit are not the questions which are being sought to be raised by the applicants, the ruling cannot apply to the present case. 7. In view of the observations made, the trial Court is right in rejecting the application. The order dated 18-10-1988 needs no interference and the civil revision is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Revision dismissed. -----