JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned order dated 17.10.2015 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara (for short 'the learned court below') whereby learned court below has rejected their application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as party-defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract laid by the first respondent-plaintiff. 2. The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the second respondent-defendant seeking enforcement of agreement to sale dated 24.12.2009 allegedly executed by the second respondent-defendant in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for the suit property. It is, inter alia, averred in the suit that second respondent agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent-plaintiff which was purchased by his father Ratanlal Kathed in open auction and after death of his father having derived title as sole legal heir, he was authorised to alienate the property. In the agreement to sale, the terms and conditions including the consideration amount were also mentioned. 3. Petitioners-applicants having come to know about pendency of the suit made endeavour to be impleaded as party defendants and consequently laid an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. The recitals contained in the application reveal that as per petitioners, all of them have authorised Ratanlal Kathed to participate in the auction proceedings under taken by the District Collector, Bhilwara on 01.12.1984 and, therefore, on their behalf as their authorised representative and power of attorney, he has participated in the auction proceedings. After completion of auction, the properties as such were transferred in the names of petitioners and Ratanlal Kathed has not derived any right, title or interest pertaining to suit property. With these averments, the petitioners craved for being impleaded as party defendants with the positive assertion that respondent-plaintiff was having no right to alienate the property or to enter into an agreement to sale. It is also averred that petitioners' interests are very much involved in the property and, therefore, they are not only proper parties but also necessary parties. 4. It is also averred that petitioners' interests are very much involved in the property and, therefore, they are not only proper parties but also necessary parties. 4. The learned court below after hearing the rival parties and analysing the legal position within the four corners of Order I Rule 10 CPC and the nature of the suit which was for specific performance of contract, declined their prayer. The learned court below in the impugned order has observed that in a suit for specific performance of contract, only the seller and the prospective purchaser are the necessary parties and no third party can stake its claim for being impleaded as a party to the litigation. In totality, while relying on some of the legal precedents, learned court below has concluded that petitioners are not proper parties to the litigation much less necessary parties. 5. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the materials available on record. 6. The entire edifice of the application of the petitioners is special authorisation letter (Annex.3) allegedly executed by them in favour of Ratanlal Kathed for participating in the auction proceedings. The authenticity and legal sanctity of the special authorisation letter is seriously questionable, more particularly in the light of registered sale deed executed by the District Collector, Bhilwara for and on behalf of his Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan in favour of Mr. Ratanlal Kathed. The registered sale deed (Annex.4) makes it amply clear that after accepting the highest bid of Ratanlal Kathed, the entire suit property was transferred in his name and registered deed was also executed accordingly. In the registered sale deed, there is no mention about the names and particulars of any of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, after death of Ratanlal Kathed being his adopted son and legal heir, respondent-defendant while acknowledging his status as owner of the property has agreed to sell the same to the respondent-plaintiff. It is really strange that the sale deed which was executed in favour of Ratanlal Kathed after finalisation of auction continued to remain in the name of Ratanlal Kathed and none of the petitioners have questioned its authenticity or to ask Ratanlal Kathed to execute an instrument to transfer the property in their name. It is really strange that the sale deed which was executed in favour of Ratanlal Kathed after finalisation of auction continued to remain in the name of Ratanlal Kathed and none of the petitioners have questioned its authenticity or to ask Ratanlal Kathed to execute an instrument to transfer the property in their name. After execution of sale deed (Annex.4), Ratanlal Kathed survived for more than 15 years and during that period, all the petitioners kept mum and not staked their claim as owner of the property. Even after his death, the respondent-defendant executed agreement to sale on 24.12.2009 and during this interregnum period of almost a decade also, none of the petitioners have approached the respondent-plaintiff to apprise him about the alleged fact situation or the so-called authorisation letter issued by them in favour of Ratanlal Kathed for purchasing the suit property in open auction. 7. As observed supra, the so-called authorisation letter itself is under serious cloud and looking to the nature of suit which is for specific performance of contract, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. The learned court below while examining the matter in its entirety and by relying on the legal precedents has rightly concluded that in a suit for specific performance of contract, no third party can be impleaded as defendant. Therefore, is a just decision which cannot be made subject matter of judicial scrutiny in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. In substance, this Court is of the firm opinion that petitioners are having no semblance of interest in the suit property and, therefore,the learned court below has rightly declined their prayer for being impleaded as party to the litigation. It is trite that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and the said jurisdiction is not akin to an appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The learned court below has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor it is a case of dereliction from duty or flagrant violation of law warranting interference. 8. Resultantly, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.Writ petition dismissed. *******