R. D. SUKLA, J. ( 1 ) REVISION is directed against the order dated 4. 3. 1997 of the 5th addl. Distt. Judge, Ujjain passed in Civil Suit no. 20-A/91 whereby applicant's application for impleading him as a party or for modification of the injunction in the alternative has been rejected. ( 2 ) BRIEF history of the case is that N. A. No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against N. A. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 with the assertions that defendants (N. As.)entered into an agreement for. sale of property vide agreement dated 4. 2. 1989. During the pendency of the case an application for injunction was filed. Learned trial judge passed an order of injunction against transfer or sale of the whole of suit land. ( 3 ) THE applicant filed an application with the assertions that the defendants (N. As. 1 to 5 here) have already agreed to sell the land bearing area 25 x 40 sq. feet with Plot No. 3 on 25. 4. 1985. The applicant here has already obtained a decree for specific performance of contract. He, therefore, filed an application before the court below that either the injunction be modified excluding the land sold to present applicant or he may also be impleaded as a party. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF refused to implead him as a party. The court below has rightly observed that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead any person as a party if he is a stranger or third person. Here is a case where the applicant is a purchaser of the one part of the suit property and therefore, he cannot be said to be a stranger. In such a situation either the injunction will have to be modified or the applicant will be treated to be a necessary party. ( 5 ) IN view of above, learned counsel for the plaintiff conceded to the point that 'the injunction may be modified to the extent that the injunction shall not apply against Plot No. 3 bearing area 25'x30' as sold to the applicant; counsel for N. A. No. 1 (plaintiff) further submitted that his interest be also protected so that it may not have any adverse effect on his case. ( 6 ) PLAINTIFF is free to make amendment in his plaint and if any application fcr amendment is made, learned trial Judge shall consider the same favourably. It is for the plaintiff to show whether he is ready to perform his part of the contract despite the reduction in the area of the land in agreement and in that view of the matter the court shall decide the matter in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, revision is partly allowed, as observed in earlier paragraphs. The parties shall bear their own cost of this revision. Revision allowed partly. .