ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 16/4/2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent Ram Singh & Smt. Kamla against respondent No.3 - Satya Singh for specific performance of a contract. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed the present application claiming that she was in possession of part of the suit property and claimed the said portion to be 55-B and contested the stand of the plaintiffs seeking specific performance of the contract pertaining to the said part of the property. 3. The application was contested by the plaintiffs inter alia raising several objections. The trial court, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that no case for impleadment was made out and consequently rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was claiming right in subject matter of the suit property and in case the decree is granted, the same would result in prejudice to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner is absolutely baseless inasmuch as the respondent Ram Singh had filed a suit against husband of the petitioner seeking eviction from the suit premises, wherein, petitioner's husband raised plea contesting his status as tenant with identical pleas. The suit was decreed and the issue pertaining to the claim made was also decided against the husband of the petitioner and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. In a suit for specific performance, the only necessary parties are vendor and vendee and any person claiming adversely to the title of the vendor is not a necessary party. The said principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. : (2005) 6 SCC 733 . 8. 7. In a suit for specific performance, the only necessary parties are vendor and vendee and any person claiming adversely to the title of the vendor is not a necessary party. The said principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. : (2005) 6 SCC 733 . 8. Besides the above, dismissal of the identical plea raised by petitioner's husband in a suit filed by Ram Singh indicating him as tenant, stares in face of the petitioner, which decree admittedly has become final. 9. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. 10. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.