A third party with a contingent interest in the suit property does not have the right to be impleaded as a party to execution proceedings under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC or Section 151 CPC.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the only question that arose for consideration before the V additional Judge, City Civil Court hyderabad, in E P No. 36 of 1978 In e A No 143 of 1979 was whether the appellant herein who is a -third party to the suit as well as to the Execution proceedings was entitled to be brought on record under Ordar 22 Rules, 2, 10,12 read with section 151 C P C.

( 2 ) ONE Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum filed against ADOOl Bin Sultan and other the suit 0 3 N 3 383 of 1969 in the Court of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad for specific performance of the agreement for sale and possession of the suit property. The suit terminated in favour of the said Said Habeebunnisa bagju by the Judgment and decree of this court on 14-6-1978 in L P A No 211 of 1976. By virtue of the said judgment of this Court Smt Habeebunnisa bagum was directed to dapojit a sum of Rs 9,500/-being the balance due under the suit sale agreement and it was further directed that Abool Bin Sultan should execute a sale deed in her favour failing which the court would do the same. Subsequent to the disposal of the said L P A by this Court the said habeebunnisa Begurn initiated Execution proceedings in E P No 36 of 1978. During the pendency of the Exscution petition the decree holder Habeebunnlsa bagum died on 4-4-1979 leaving bahind her four sons and five daughters who have been impleaded as decree-holders in the execution proceedings.

( 3 ) IT would appear that the said habeebunnisa Begum entered into two agreements one dated 22-4-1967 and another dated 22-9-1973 in favour of the appellant herein agreeing to sell the property which was the subject matter of the suit 0 S No 388 of 1969.

( 4 ) THE contention of the appellant herein was that under the first agreement the deceased Habeebunnisa begum had agreed to sell the suit property tor a total consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and she also received a sum of rs. 5,000/- as an advance from him. The said Habeebunnisa Begum was directed to deposit Rs. 9,500/- towards balance payable by her to the defendant in the suit ana her suit was decreed. She obtained a further sum of rs. 15,000/- from the appellant herein in continuation of the earlier agreement dated 22-4-1967 and executed another agreement in his favour on 22-9-1973 under which she agreed that as and when the judgment - debtor executes a sale deed in her favour in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by this court in L P A No 211 of 1976 dated 14-6-1978 she would receive the balance of the consideration under the agreement for sale and execute a sale deed in favour of me appellant. Further, it is the case of the appellant that after the deatn of the said Habeebunnisa begum on 4-4-79 he approached her children and apprised them of the fact tnat their mother had executed two agreements of sale of the suit property and that she also received a sum of rs. 25,000/- and further sum of rs. 15,000/- as already stated above. As tne cnlldren of the deceased Habeebunnisa bagum did not give any satisfactory reply, tne appellant herein filed E. P. No. 36/78 in E A No 143 of 1973 in o S No. 388/69 for impleading him as a party to the Execution Proceedings.

( 5 ) THE learned V Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on haering the arguments of the appellant herein held that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 C P C have no application to the case and as such the petition was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the petition.

( 6 ) SRI Syed Sadatullah Hussaini, the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal relying upon various authorities cited by him contended that in order that the appellant s interest be safeguarded in view of the agreements for sale executed by the mother of the decree-holders the appellant may be brought on record so that the decree-holders should not have an opportunity to settle the matters with the Judgment-debtors in order to defeat and defraud the interests of the appellant.

( 7 ) WHEREAS, Sri Mirza M