BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THE suit was filed by Sri Arun P. Gala s/o Premji G. Gala who is the appellant against the defendants seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 19th april, 1989. This agreement was allegedly entered into between Sri Arun P. Gala and the defendants. In the suit the decree that was sought was;"therefore, the plaintiff prays that this hon ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the defendants jointly and severally:- (1) By ordering specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 19-4-89, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff by ordering sale of all that property consisting of the land admeasuring 959 Sq. yards equivalent to Sq. metres bearing municipal No. 5-9-1117, situate at Church lane, Gunfoundry, hyderabad, bounded on the north by : Road south by : Neighbours east by : House of sibgathulla School west by : Moin Manzil. In favour of the plaintiff. 19. By an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, subordinates, followers and all persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful and enjoyment of the part of the premises bearing Municipal no. 5-9-1117, Churchlane, gunfoundry, Hyderabad excepting 3 rooms in the said premises, which is used as residence of the defendants as shown in this sketch plan, annexed hereinto. "the suit was resisted by the defendants and after trial the suit was dismissed. All the detailed facts are not necessary to be given in this judgment in view of what has transpired from the hearing of the case. ( 2 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues;" (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of sale agreement dated 19-4-89? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? (3) Whether there was no valid agreement between the plaintiff and defendants as on the date of filing the suit, as the defendants cancelled the agreement of sale? (4) Whether the alleged letter of authority dt. 26-4-89 has not signed by the defendants 1 to 3 and it is a forged one? (3) Whether there was no valid agreement between the plaintiff and defendants as on the date of filing the suit, as the defendants cancelled the agreement of sale? (4) Whether the alleged letter of authority dt. 26-4-89 has not signed by the defendants 1 to 3 and it is a forged one? (5) To what relief?"during the pendency of the suit itself the defendants executed three separate sale deeds in favour of a third party i. e. , m/s. Girnar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. The particulars given in one of the sale deeds are referred to here as all the sale deeds have the same particulars. These sale deeds were executed on behalf of the defendants and also Sri Arun P. Gala who is referred to in the sale deeds as consenting party . The buyers are M/s. Girnar Apartments Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Director Sri Premji J. Gala. One agreement was entered into on 27th July, 1993 and the other two agreements were entered into on 24th December, 1993. The suit had originally been filed in 1991 being o. S. No. 112/91 which was later renumbered as O. S. No. 102/97. After this arrangement no amendment in the suit was made, however I. A. Nos. 217/98 and 216/98 were filed. In I. A. No, 217/98 it was prayed that 4th respondent herein be transposed as second plaintiff in the main suit. In i. A. No. 216/98 amendment of the suit was sought in pursuance of the orders in i. A. No. 217/98. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 12th October, 1998 on merits. These orders have not been challenged. ( 3 ) SO, the suit was tried between the plaintiff and the original defendants, thereafter appeal was filed and in this appeal an application came to be filed being c. M. P. No. 1942/2000 in which a request was made that M/s. Girnar Apartments pvt. Ltd. , be made 4th respondent and the court observed accordingly. Now, an application is made that the 4th respondent should be made 2nd appellant in the appeal. ( 4 ) THE whole suit has been based on agreement Ex. A-5. According to the appellant himself that agreement has become inoperative as the suit property had already been sold after obtaining consent of the appellant. Therefore the suit itself has become infructuous. ( 4 ) THE whole suit has been based on agreement Ex. A-5. According to the appellant himself that agreement has become inoperative as the suit property had already been sold after obtaining consent of the appellant. Therefore the suit itself has become infructuous. Now, after adding m/s. Girnar Apartments Pvt. Ltd as 4th respondent can he be transposed as appellant without his being a party in the suit, we are afraid, that cannot be done for the following reasons. M/s. Girnar apartments Pvt. Ltd. , has been added as a respondent in the appeal by order of this court dated 11-4-2000. There is no relief claimed in his favour or against him. He has not come to the Court himself at any point of time. M/s. Girnar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. , is a juristic person and is represented by mr. Premji J. Gala and he has not come to the Court at any stage. If he is added as an appellant, even then he cannot get any relief from this Court unless the plaint itself is amended and he is made a plaintiff in the suit. ( 5 ) THIS has all been a comedy of errors where the learned Counsels have not conducted the case appropriately. During the course of hearing another application came to be filed to which a reference has been made above in which now the appellant wants the 4th respondent now added to be transposed as appellant without even seeking an amendment in the plaint. The whole cause of action on the basis of which the suit was filed was ex. A-5, that has become inoperative by virtue of subsequent sale deeds and the plaintiff-appellant himself was a consenting party to those sale deeds. Since he has consented to execution of sale deeds therefore the agreement whatever value it had, has become ineffective as a matter of fact has not at all been in existence. Since the basis of the suit has gone, the cause of action does not survive and there is no option except to dismiss the suit. The plaintiff-appellant does not claim any interest on the basis of the sale deeds executed. These sale deeds have been executed in favour of a company and that company till date has not come to this court. The plaintiff-appellant does not claim any interest on the basis of the sale deeds executed. These sale deeds have been executed in favour of a company and that company till date has not come to this court. ( 6 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find merit in the appeal or any of the applications made which are accordingly dismissed. It may also be mentioned at this stage that, when the appellant filed applications before the Trial Court for the same purpose for which they were filed in this Court, the trial Court dismissed those applications. Those orders have become final and they were not challenged before this Court.