P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the third parties who are questioning the order refusing to implead them as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in O. S. No. 162/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court. Vijayawada.

( 2 ) THE first respondent is (sic) (has?) filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who are the original owners of the suit property, sold the same to the petitioners under two separate sale deeds dated 2-11-1988 and 2-2-1989. As the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have sold away their property, they lost interest in the suit proceedings and if they do not prosecute the suit diligently, the petitioners who purchased the property, would suffer serious hardship. Therefore; they filed I. A. 2361/89 under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. to implead them as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 on the ground that they are proper and necessary parties to the suit, being the subsequent purchasers. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court holding that they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit and their remedy is to work out their rights by way of a separate suit. Challenging the said order, this revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI T. V. S. Prabhakara Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that even for a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. as well as Section 151 C. P. C. would apply. The learned Counsel relied upon a division Bench Decision of this court, reported in K. A. Khader v. Mahabub Saheb, 1979 (1) APLJ (HC) 93 : (AIR 1979 AP 132 ). It is suit for declaration, where, third party wanted to come on record on the ground that his great grand-father was granted the plaint schedule land by Gadwal Samsthan for the purpose of service of arranging peers in Gadwal. The plaintiffs in that suit claimed to be the owners of the land on the ground that it is service inam of the mosque. Considering the rival contentions, the Court observed as follows at page 155 (of AIR) :--"the Court has to determine the question of title of the plaintiffs. In order to decide the question relating to the ownership of the land, the 1st respondent, who is sought to be impleaded in the suit as a defendant, and who claims to be the owner of the land in question, must be considered to be a necessary and proper party without whose presence the question cannot be finally and effectually adjudicated upon".

( 4 ) IN a later decision reported in Ramesh Chandra Sarada v. Phoolchand Soni, 1981 (1) An WR 427, Justice Punnayya, had occasion to consider whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C. P. C. are applicable to a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The learned Judge considered a catena of case law and held as follows: "it is, therefore, clear that all the parties who have direct interest in the property in respect of which specific performance is sought for should be impleaded for the effective and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit to avoid multiplicity of suits or proceedings".

( 5 ) IN a subsequent decision reported in Gyaneshwar Rao v. Mahmood Shareef, 1982 (1) An LT 195 : (AIR 1982 AP 155), Justice Seetharam Reddy, had also occasion to consider the application of the provisions of order I, Rule 10 C. P. C. to a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The learned Judge on an elaborate consideration of several decisions cited at the bar, including the decision reported in Razi Begum v. Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 886 deducing the following principles, held thus at Page 162 (of AIR 1982): "on a conspectus of the above case-law, the principles that could be said to emerge in regard to application of the provisions enacted in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1, Civil Procedure Code, and in particular the expressions "whose presence before the Court may be necessary" and "in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document