ORDER : Aggrieved of order dated 10.06.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 40 of 2003, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC filed for impleading General Manager, Town Administration Department, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) as party defendant has been rejected, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 40 of 2003, which was instituted mainly for a decree of specific performance of the agreement/memo of understanding dated 11.06.2000 and 06.06.2003 and for a direction upon the defendantSukhdeo Prasad Singh to obtain permission from Steel Authority of India Limited for grant of extension of time for transfer of the lease hold interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and to execute a registered deed of transfer of the lease hold interest in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Following issues were framed in the suit : 1. Is the suit as framed is maintainable ? 2. Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit ? 3. Are the parties acquired the suit property out of the yield and income of partnership firm ? 4. Has the defendant not applied for the transfer of lease hold interest of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in the T.A. Department of SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant ? 5. Has the possession of suit property been transferred in favour of plaintiff as per memo of understanding dated 11.06.2000. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for ? 7. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for ? 4. On death of the sole defendant, his legal heirs were brought on record and his wife submitted an application to the Steel Authority of India Limited for regularisation of the suit property which is comprised under Plot No. C31, City Centre, SectorIV, Bokaro Steel City in her favour. The plaintiff thus, issued a legal notice to SAIL not to consider her application, as with respect to the said property Title Suit No. 40 of 2003 was pending in the Court. The plaintiff thus, issued a legal notice to SAIL not to consider her application, as with respect to the said property Title Suit No. 40 of 2003 was pending in the Court. Upon receiving the reply from SAIL, when the plaintiff apprehended that the SAIL is inclined to transfer the lease hold interest of the original defendant in favour of his wife, application dated 18.09.2008 was filed for impleading General Manager, Town Administration Department, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro in the pending suit. 5. The stand taken by the plaintiff in application dated 18.09.2008 discloses that the plaintiff has a grievance against the SAIL which was considering transfer of lease hold interest granted in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, to his wife. This would certainly give rise to a separate cause of action, for which the plaintiff is required to institute a separate suit seeking appropriate order/direction/injunction against the SAIL. In a suit for specific performance of agreement/memorandum of understanding dated 11.06.2000 and 06.06.2003 and for a direction upon the defendant to transfer through the registered deed his lease hold interest in favour of the plaintiff, the cause of action which has been disclosed in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, cannot be adjudicated. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 40 of 2003, and accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.