JUDGMENT R.D. Kothari, J. 1. The present petition is filed challenging the order passed below Exh. 36 in Regular civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 by 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional C.J.M., Vadodara on 18.02.2013. By the said order, the learned Judge was pleased to allow the respondent No. 5's application to join him as a party. Heard the learned Advocate Mr. P.R. Thakkar for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Malkhan, learned Advocate for respondent No. 5 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4. 2. The brief relevant facts are thus; one Savitaben had purchased the suit land by executing a registered sale deed on 28.05.1980. She had executed a Will in favour of the present petitioner on 20.03.1990. She passed away on 13.05.1990. Pursuant to the Will made in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner's names were mutated in revenue record after issuing of notice to the LRs of deceased Savitaben. Thereafter, the present petitioner had sold the suit land on 21.01.2010 to one Rashmikant Jayashankar Bhatt and Chaital Rashmikant Bhatt by executing a registered sale deed. Name of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue record. LRs of deceased Savitaben had instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 against the present petitioner, wherein LRs of deceased Savitaben had inter alia contended that deceased Savitaben had no right to make Will as the property in question is ancestral property. In written submissions filed by the present petitioner in the said suit, petitioner had declared that the suit land is already sold by the present petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the purchaser of the suit land had obtained the N.A. permission from the Collector. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 had instituted a suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 758 of 2010 against the LRs of deceased Savitaben and against present petitioner on the ground that deceased Savitaben had executed an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No. 5. Pursuant to that agreement to sell, respondent No. 5 had instituted a suit for specific performance. Thereafter on 02.03.2012, parties in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 have filed a compromise pursis in the said suit. Thereafter, on 23.03.2012, respondent No. 5 had filed an application in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 to implead him as a party. Thereafter on 02.03.2012, parties in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 have filed a compromise pursis in the said suit. Thereafter, on 23.03.2012, respondent No. 5 had filed an application in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 to implead him as a party. It is say of respondent No. 5 that he is interested party. The said application was allowed by the Court, hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar, for the petitioner at the time of hearing submitted that the Court had already accepted the compromise and only consequential order was required to be passed below Exh. 1. That in that circumstances, the Court has no power to allow the application filed by respondent No. 5. It was submitted that Court has become functus officio. It was also submitted that considering the nature of the suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010, respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be necessary or proper party. In support of this, learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar has drawn attention to pleading in both the suits particularly cause of action and prayer of the plaintiff in both the suits. Thereafter, referring the order under challenge, it was submitted that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law in allowing the present application. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Malkan, appearing for respondent No. 5 has pointed out that present petitioner is not related in any manner to deceased Savitaben. It was submitted that petitioner has acquired the interest through Will, however the land was agricultural land at the relevant time and the petitioner was not agriculturist. Acquiring the interest by the petitioner and particularly validity of such alleged interest in the circumstances of the case, it was submitted, is not beyond the area of doubt. That petitioner in such circumstances cannot acquire valid and effective right. Learned Advocate Mr. Malkan also drawn attention to relevant part of the detailed compromise arrived at between the parties in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010. Lastly, supporting the order under challenged, it was submitted that learned trial Court has not committed any error and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4, Mr. S.P. Majmudar has drawn attention to affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 to 4. Lastly, supporting the order under challenged, it was submitted that learned trial Court has not committed any error and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4, Mr. S.P. Majmudar has drawn attention to affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 to 4. Attention was drawn to para 4 and 5 of the affidavit (produced at page 111). 6. In the present case, finding of the learned trial Court is at Para 9, it reads thus:-- "Looking to the facts of this case and documents produced by the applicant Bhupendrabhai Somabhai Patel as well as, it reflects that regarding the execution of banakhat & sale deed between the applicant defendant & deceased Savitaben on the ground of Will in the past and then negligence of the plaintiff in executing the sale deed in favour of the defendant applicant third party and also looking to the pending proceedings bearing Sp. C.S. No. 758/2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Vadodara, and also deciding the disputed suit property in question, no question will arise if the said suit is decided & then there will no multiplicity of the proceedings arise in respect of the present suit property. The main dispute in this suit is to the effect of sale deed. That referring the citations cited as above, the legal concept of a necessary party and proper party were reiterate. That Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. enable the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effective and complete adjudication upon and to settle all the question involved in the suit. Therefore, it requires to allow this application in the interest of justice as the applicant is a necessary party to this suit for proper adjudication. Hence, I pass the following order in the interest of justice........." 7. On rereading the above para, one finds that say of the learned trial Court is not clear. Broadly saying possibility of multiplicity of suit proceedings and power of Court to implead anyone as a party in the suit at any stage of the proceedings are the ground that had weighed with the learned trial Court. On rereading the above para, one finds that say of the learned trial Court is not clear. Broadly saying possibility of multiplicity of suit proceedings and power of Court to implead anyone as a party in the suit at any stage of the proceedings are the ground that had weighed with the learned trial Court. It has also observed that "...........The main dispute in this suit is to the effect of sale deed........." It is not clear and more than that it is erroneous. The main dispute in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 is validity of the Will, executed by deceased Savitaben or say, competency of deceased Savitaben to execute Will. 8. The findings of the learned trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is not clear beside that learned trial Court has seriously erred in holding that Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 is a suit to consider the effect of the sale deed. Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 is as observed above, instituted by the plaintiff on the ground inter alia that deceased Savitaben has no right to make Will, since the suit property is ancestral property. Thus, on merits also, order of learned trial Court is erroneous. As to the reason namely possibility of multiplicity of suit proceedings and wide power under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead anyone as a party at any stage, it is too broad and too general to become basis for decision by itself. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar has drawn attention to the case of Kasturi versus Iyyamperumal and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2813 . In Kasturi's case (supra) third party had filed an application to join him as a party in the suit for specific performance. The third party claimed that he has a title and he is in possession of the suit property. It was also held that third party on such claim, cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit for specific performance. Converse in the case herein, Kasturi's case (supra) helps the present petitioner. 10. Mr. Malkan, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5 has drawn attention to the case of Shamjibhai Keshavjibhai Kansagra (Patel) & Ors. Versus Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) & Others reported in AIR 2011 Gujarat 55. Converse in the case herein, Kasturi's case (supra) helps the present petitioner. 10. Mr. Malkan, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5 has drawn attention to the case of Shamjibhai Keshavjibhai Kansagra (Patel) & Ors. Versus Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) & Others reported in AIR 2011 Gujarat 55. In support of the submission that petitioner not being agriculturist cannot successfully acquire any right in the suit property. Reliance was also placed on Rajenbhai Baldevbhai Shah versus Baijiben Kabhaibhai Patanvadia & Others reported in 2009 2 GLR 1784 . Therein it appears that in contravention provision of Bombay Tenancy of Agricultural Land Act, 1948 "new tenure land sought to be transferred by Will such transfer was held to be illegal and ineffective". 11. Since respondent No. 5 has instituted a substantive suit i.e. Special Suit No. 758 of 2010 against all the interested party including the present petitioner, the respondent No. 5 cannot urge in the present suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 to implead him as a party. In the circumstances of the case, he cannot said to be necessary or property party. It may be stated that at the time of hearing, it was pointed out that learned trial Court has not passed an order accepting the compromise said to have arrived at between the parties in the suit. That the learned trial Court has passed an order only of recording the compromise. In other words, it had passed an order "Recorded". It was pointed out that no effective order is passed below Exh. 1. This in the circumstance of the case is not of much consequence or significance. Accepting the say of respondent No. 5, it can be said that Court has yet to apply mind to the compromise application filed by the party and compromise is yet to be accepted by the Court. In this regard, Mr. Malkan, learned Advocate also drawn attention to Para 3 of the affidavit filed by one Pravinbhai Patel on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4. Referring and relying on para 3 (page 111), it was pointed out that respondent No. 1 to 4 also dispute the assertion of the settlement of the suit as alleged by the petitioner, inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 to 4 alleged that said compromise is not acted upon and consideration as agreed, is not paid to them. Referring and relying on para 3 (page 111), it was pointed out that respondent No. 1 to 4 also dispute the assertion of the settlement of the suit as alleged by the petitioner, inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 to 4 alleged that said compromise is not acted upon and consideration as agreed, is not paid to them. This does not carry the matter any further. To settle or not to settle the dispute is for the party to decide. Prima facie it appears that the Court has not applied its mind to the compromise application filed by the parties. The suit may or may not have been settled between the parties. However, the respondent No. 5 cannot apply to implead him as a party as his prayer for specific performance cannot be entertained in a suit which broadly can be said to be title suit or suit to set aside the Will and secondly, since the respondent No. 5 has instituted independent substantive suit i.e. Special Suit No. 758 of 2010, he cannot apply to implead him as a party. 11.1 It may also be noted that the submission that petitioner was not agriculturalist at the relevant time and hence, alleged acquiring of suit property by him which is agriculture land is bad and illegal and that deceased and petitioner were not even distantly related inter se and therefore, transferring of property by Will is bad both submissions cannot help respondent No. 5 to justify his (respondent No. 5's) claim to join him as a party. The petitioner would bear and suffer the consequence - assuming for the sake of arguments that such submission has substance of basing his rights on such compromise decree. No decree including compromise decree can travel beyond or outside the pleadings in the case on hand. Decree de hors the pleading may lacks in potency or to be precise, allegedly dubious claim or right cannot acquire legitimacy or validity only on the strength of compromise decree. Such nature of right does leave scope of arguments. But that is not the point. Respondent No. 5 cannot be impleaded as a party on this plea. 12. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 4 submitted that they support the say of the petitioner. In view of above, the order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside. But that is not the point. Respondent No. 5 cannot be impleaded as a party on this plea. 12. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 4 submitted that they support the say of the petitioner. In view of above, the order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed. Application filed by respondent No. 5 at Exh. 36 in Regular Civil Suit No. 865 of 2010 is hereby dismissed. Rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed.