JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - On a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, the present petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 27 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. He filed a suit for specific performance. The aforesaid suit is pending before the learned trial Court. 3. During the course of the proceedings in the aforesaid suit, on Subha Chand son of Sheo Karan filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for being impleaded as a party in the suit. He claimed that he had also filed a suit with regard to the land in dispute on the averment that he is owner in possession of the suit property On that basis, he claimed that he was also a necessary party in the present suit. 4. The learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by Subha Chand vide order dated October 4, 2002. 5. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid order through the present revision petition. 6. I have heard Shri Manoj Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R.A. Sheoran, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 7. Shri Manoj Bajaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that applicant Subha Chand was not a necessary party to the suit at all in as much as he was a stranger to the agreement sought to be enforced by the plaintiff. Shri Bajaj has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ram Pat v. Maha Singh, 1998(2) Punjab Law Reporter 312 and Krishan Lal and others v. Tek Chand and others, A.I.R. 1987 Punjab & Haryana 197. Shri Bajaj has also brought to my notice an order dated April 2, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri in another suit filed by plaintiff Nafe Singh for specific performance of another agreement dated August 2, 1996. A similar application was filed by Subha Chand in the aforesaid suit but the learned Civil Judge by the aforesaid order dated April 2, 2002 dismissed the aforesaid application holding that Subha Chand was not a necessary party. A similar application was filed by Subha Chand in the aforesaid suit but the learned Civil Judge by the aforesaid order dated April 2, 2002 dismissed the aforesaid application holding that Subha Chand was not a necessary party. On that basis, Shri Bajaj maintains that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in the present suit was not legally sustainable and in any case was in contravention of the earlier order dated April 2, 2002 passed by the learned trial Judge in another suit. 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the present revision petitioner deserves to succeed. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Lals case (supra) has held as follows : "In a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, a person not party to the agreement to sell, and claiming to be joint owner of the subject-matter of the suit, is not entitled to be impleaded as a defendant. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In the simple suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, a decree sought against the defendant is for the purpose of enforcement of the contract entered into between the executants. No relief is sought against strangers to the agreement for sale. The question involved in the suit does not relate to any liabilities or rights of the strangers in the property in dispute. A decree for specific performance, if granted, will bind only the executants of sale deed, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant and would not affect the position of strangers to the agreement. The plaintiff is the dominus litus in a suit. He should not, unless the provisions of any statute so require, be enforced to fight against a person against whom he does not claim or seek any relief. In a suit for specific performance the questions involved are the execution of the contract for sale, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, etc. For settling these questions the presence of strangers is not necessary. It is not even proper. A person who claims title adverse to the parties to the contract is not a necessary or a proper party. For settling these questions the presence of strangers is not necessary. It is not even proper. A person who claims title adverse to the parties to the contract is not a necessary or a proper party. The addition of such a person will enlarge the scope of the suit and change its nature and turn it into a title suit. This is not the object of Order 1 Rule 10(12), Civil P.C. It is only when for the purpose of full adjudication of the matter in issue, a party which is not added is necessary that the provisions of R. 10(2) are attracted. Thus, unless a party proposed to be added had directly an interest in the controversy and its adjudication, in power cannot be invoked." The judgment in Krishan Lals case (supra) was also followed by this Court in Ram Pats case (supra). 10. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that respondent No. 3 Subha Chand was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit for specific performance being a stranger to the agreement. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and consequently the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is dismissed. No costs. Petition allowed.