Judgment 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22-2-1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madhepura, in Title Suit No. 55 of 1991 rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree for specific performance of contract between him and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit lands measuring 2 Bighas, 17 Kathas and 4 dhoors. The plaintiff case is that by virtue of an agreement dated 28-10-1988, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell and transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on consideration of Rs. 53,000.00 out of which a sum of Rs. 34,000.00 was paid as advance and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The vendors-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the suit land had been sold to various persons. The plaintiff case is that after knowing the aforesaid fact from the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, a petition for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking permission to amend the plaint by impleading the purchasers as party defendants. The said petition was opposed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff had knowledge about the sale of the suit property to different persons and, therefore, the petition for amendment is belated one. The learned Court below after hearing the parties rejected the amendment petition holding that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of different persons. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. It appears that the Court below neither correctly appreciated the law nor the facts of the case while considering the amendment of petition. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance, the transferee from the vendors with notice of the prior contract of sale is necessary party in a suit. It is equally well settled that when promisor-defendant acts in concert with another person in order to defeat the plaintiff right under the contract then such person is to be added as party-defendant in a suit for specific performance. It is equally well settled that when promisor-defendant acts in concert with another person in order to defeat the plaintiff right under the contract then such person is to be added as party-defendant in a suit for specific performance. Even the persons claiming under the earlier agreement of sale in their favour and in possession of the suit property are necessary and proper party to the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell notwithstanding that the suit was for specific performance simpliciter where no consequential relief of possession or injunction was claimed. 4. It is true that general rule with regard to suits to enforce contract is that the parties to the contract or their representatives are necessary and sufficient parties to the suit. Contract is what constitutes right and regulate liabilities of the parties and, therefore, there is no right to enforce the specific performance against a stranger, but in cases the relief claimed in the suit might affect the persons in possession of the property by virtue of assignment or purchase may properly be made a party to an action for specific performance of contract it is, therefore, clear that in a suit for specific performance if the vendor defendant come with a case that he sold the suit property to different persons then those persons are necessary to be added as party, so that their right may not be affected if a decree for specific performance is passed in the suit. At this stage it is worth to quote a passage from the Book" A Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contract (Six Edition) by Rt. At this stage it is worth to quote a passage from the Book" A Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contract (Six Edition) by Rt. Sir Edward Fry at page 108 : "Where a contract has been entered into for the sale or demise or other dealing with property, and that property is afterwards transferred to a third person, such third person is liable to perform the contract at the suit of the purchaser or intended lessee in any of the following events, viz.(1) When the transferee takes as a volunteer,(2) When the transferee takes with notice of the prior contract.(3) When the transferee has acquired only an equitable title and has no better equity than the purchaser or intended lessee."If" said Lord Rosslyn, "he" (the transferee)" is purchaser with notice, he is liable to the same equity, stands in his place, and he is bound to do that which the person he represents would be bound to do by the decree". This principle has been acted on in numerous cases. It has been applied in a case of a transferee taking as a volunteer, to a contract for sale of shares." 5. This principle has been acted on in numerous cases. It has been applied in a case of a transferee taking as a volunteer, to a contract for sale of shares." 5. In this regard reference may also be made to S. 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as under :Sec. 19 :- Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title.- Except as otherwise provided by the chapter, specific performance of contract may be enforced against :-(a) either party thereto;(b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract;(c) any person claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract and known to the plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant;(d) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated with another company the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;(e) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract for the purpose of the company and such contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation, the company;Provided that the company has accepted the contract and communicated such acceptance to the other party to the contract."From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that a contract for specific performance may be enforced against the subsequent transferee or transferee pendente-lite other than the transferee who purchased the property for valuable consideration without notice of the original contract. It is a matter to be proved in the suit, whether a transferee from vendor defendant is bona fide purchaser without notice of the prior agreement. 6 In the instant case the learned Court below has completely misconstrued the provision of law with regard to necessary and proper party in a suit for specific performance. There is, of course, delay in filing the application for impleading the purchasers as party in the suit but on that account prayer for amendment of the plaint cannot be refused. As stated above, the transferee from the defendant in the event added as defendant in the suit they shall have right to take all defences including that they are bona fide purchaser without notice or such defences which are available under the law. As stated above, the transferee from the defendant in the event added as defendant in the suit they shall have right to take all defences including that they are bona fide purchaser without notice or such defences which are available under the law. The impugned order, therefore, in my opinion, cannot be sustained in law. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside, consequently the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. No order as to costs.Petition allowed.