A.P. Deshpande, J.
1. One Kalpita Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon, is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The said company filed a suit against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, a claim for recovery of an amount of Rs. 39,90,000/- came to be made. The said suit was filed by the company through its Managing Director-Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel. It is not in dispute that when the suit came to be filed, the said Managing Director-Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel had authority to file the suit. After filing of the suit, it appears that the relations of the Directors of the company with one another became strained and various disputes cropped up amongst themselves. As a result of dispute between Directors, the present petitioners moved an application in the pending suit before the trial Court, seeking to implead them as plaintiffs in addition to the original plaintiff. The said application was moved under Order 1, Rule 10 and it was contended therein that Pravinchandra Patel ceases to be the Director of the Company and hence, it was contended that the petitioners be brought on record as plaintiffs. The said application did not reveal the details as to when and in what fashion, Pravinchandra Patel has been removed as the Director of the Company. The said application was opposed by the original plaintiffs/respondent No. 1 herein. The trial Court, after hearing the parties rejected the application by its order dated 6-2-2002, by holding that the application was wholly misconceived and that Pravinchandra continues to be the Director of the Company. It was also contended that the present petitioners are no longer the Directors of the Company. The trial Court has held that barring an affidavit of the present petitioners, no other material was placed on record to substantiate the fact that the petitioners are the Directors of the Company and proceeded to reject the application.
2. The short question that falls for consideration is, as to whether the petitioner could be said to be necessary party for being impleaded in the suit. At the outset, one thing has to be borne in mind that it will not be possible to adjudicate the serious dispute between the petitioners and Pravinchandra Patel about their status as Director of the Company, inasmuch as the main suit is for specific performance instituted against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a dispute between the co-plaintiffs in regard to their status as a Director will be wholly outside the scope of the suit. The learned Counsel, placing reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in para 6 of the judgment reported in : [1992]2SCR1 , Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, contended that the question of impleadment of a party has to be decided at the touch-stone of Order 1, Rule 10, which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. The Apex Court observed, as under:
'A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.'
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the basis of above observations of the Apex Court, submitted that the petitioners are not necessary parties.
3. Another judgment relied upon by the respondent No. 1 in Vijay Pratap v. Shambhusharan Sinha and others, reported in : AIR1996SC2755 . In the said judgment the Apex Court approved the findings of the trial Court that a dispute between the co-plaintiffs with respect to their right, title and interest cannot be decided in a suit for specific performance of contract, instituted against a third party as the same would result in converting the said suit into a regular title suit. True it is, that if the application filed by the petitioners is allowed, the same is bound to give rise to a serious dispute as to who are the Directors of the plaintiff company and that dispute cannot be resolved by allowing the application for joining as parties. In my view, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. It is not difficult to visualize the problems that would occur if and in case the application is allowed, in trial of the suit, and in this view of the matter, I do not think that the trial court has committed any illegally in rejecting the application. Even otherwise, no interference is called for in the limited revisional jurisdiction as the trial Court has neither committed any jurisdictional error, nor the impugned order suffers from any material illegality. The discretion exercised by the Court below is not required to be interfered with.
4. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.