ORDER : 1. The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 28/09/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.138-A/2009 whereby the learned 28" District Judge, Indore has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment of certain persons as a necessary party to the civil suit. 2. Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.RCS-138-A/2009 for specific performance and permanent injunction, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent no.1-Badrilal alleging that initially on 28.06.2006 the respondent No.2 Damodar S/o Laxmanji Khati and respondent No.3 Shyam S/o Laxmanji Khati entered into an agreement to sale with respondent No.1 Badrilal S/o Kaniram of a land bearing Khasra No’s.435, 392, 394, Halka Patwari No.15/2, total Rakba 8.33 Acres situated, at Musakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore (M.P.) for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000 Per/Acre and sum to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as a part payment. 3. Subsequent to that on 17/10/2006, the respondent No.1-Badrilal entered into an agreement to sale of the said land to the present petitioner/ plaintiff through an agreement to sale dated 17/10/2006 and in pursuance of the said agreement part payment were also paid to respondent no.1. In spite of several reminders and legal notice the respondent no.1 did not perform his part of agreement, therefore, a notice for specific performance of agreement and execution of sale deed was issued by the petitioner however, since there was no response from the respondent no.1 petitioner filed the said civil suit. 4. It was further alleged that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by one Vishnu Prasad, thereafter, the petitioner came to know that respondent no.2 &3 and Laxman had fraudulently entered into an another agreement to sale with Vishnu Prasad, for which a Civil Suit No.RCS-A-1200053/2016 was filed before XI Civil Judge, Class-I Indore by Vishnu. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 27.01.2022, which was dismissed on 20.09.2022 on the ground that the case is pending for more than 5 years and as per directions of Hon. High Court it has to be disposed of within 5 years. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 27.01.2022, which was dismissed on 20.09.2022 on the ground that the case is pending for more than 5 years and as per directions of Hon. High Court it has to be disposed of within 5 years. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of proposed LRs of Laxman on 16.01.2022 and the same was rejected on the ground of maintainability that before impleading the proposed LRs it has to be decided as to whether they are necessary party or not. Being aggrieved by the said order this petition has been filed. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned Trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the Petitioner being vested with the Assignable Rights under section 15 of the Specific Relief Act was entitled to file the suit against Respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that this section entitles the Petitioner to file suit against Badrilal, Respondent No.1, because in the Agreement dated 17.10.2006 between Respondent 2 &3 & Badrilal, it wasn’t mentioned that rights under this agreement shall not be assignable. Thus, Badrilal got the assignable right vide agreement dated 28.02.2006 and was competent to execute the agreement dated 17.10.2006 in favour of the Petitioner Ankit Gupta. Counsel also submitted that learned trial Court erred in arriving at conclusion that suit could not have been filed against Badrilal, because suit of Specific Performance can be filed only against the person with whom the agreement was entered into. The proposed LRs are not parties in the agreement and hence the suit cannot be filed against them for specific performance of contract nor they can be impleaded as party. 6. It is further contended that learned trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that any order passed in suit pertaining to the suit property without impleading the necessary party, would adversely affect the petitioner's rights including the right to property. The defendants had no objection in allowing the application filed by the petitioner and adding necessary parties in the civil suit. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumtibai and Ors. vs. Paras Finance Co. The defendants had no objection in allowing the application filed by the petitioner and adding necessary parties in the civil suit. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumtibai and Ors. vs. Paras Finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC 82 ; Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Center and Hotels Private Limited and Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 417 , Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 so also the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Vinit Solanki vs. Anil Kumar, ILR (2015) M.P. 2568. Counsel further relied upon the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Pallapu Mohanarao (Died) Per LRs. vs. Thammisetty Subba Rao & Ors. 2011 SCC Online AP 362; Indu Bai & Anr. vs. Rajendra Kumar Bhandari & Anr., 2009 SCC Online AP 947. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer by submitting that by impleading these persons as parties, the trial will be unnecessarily delayed, however, it is fairly admitted that before trial Court they have not filed any objections with regard to said application. 8. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. 9. Order 1, Rule 10(2) postulates that: Court may strike out or add parties. (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 10. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 11. A `necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a `necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A `proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. 12. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the case of Pallapu Mohanarao (Died) Per LRs. (Supra) wherein it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that mere likelihood of persons acquiring right or interest in the subject matter of a suit would be sufficient for the concerned individual to get himself impleaded. In this case it emerges as undisputed fact that proposed defendants are heirs of Laxman, who is the real owner of the suit property. In these conditions no executable decree can be passed without impleading them as a party. In this case it emerges as undisputed fact that proposed defendants are heirs of Laxman, who is the real owner of the suit property. In these conditions no executable decree can be passed without impleading them as a party. Certainly, they are the third party because they are not party of the said contract, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be laid down as a absolute proposition, that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by the plaintiff (P) against defendant (D), the third party (T) can never be impleaded in that suit. If there is a fair semblance of title or interest is available in favour of third party (T), he can be impleaded as a party. It is also necessary in order to prevent multiplicity of suits. 13. In this case, the proposed defendants are said to be the heirs of original owner of the suit land and they are relatives of defendant no.2 & 3, on this aspect the principle of dominus litis, is also applied. Actually, plaintiff is the dominus litis of the suit and in this case the petitioner/plaintiff has himself requested to implead the proposed respondent/defendants as parties. 14. In the upshot of the aforesaid discussions, in the considered opinion of this Court impugned order passed by learned trial Court is not found in accordance with law. Accordingly, having allowed this miscellaneous petition, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to implead the proposed parties as defendants to the civil suit in the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court. 15. Resultantly, M.P. No.4885/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.