The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.33 of 2008 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, against the 2nd respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-02-2006. Alternative relief, in the form of a decree for refund of the amount, received as advance under the agreement, was also prayed for. On coming to know that the petitioners herein have purchased the suit schedule property, the 1 sl respondent filed I.A.No.2557 of 2008, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to add them as defendants 2 and 3. The application was resisted by the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. Through order, dated 23-01-2009, the learned District Judge, allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

2. Sri G. Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that his clients are neither necessary, nor proper parties to the suit and there was no basis for the trial Court to add them as parties. He contends that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, and in that view of the matter, they cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation.

3. Sri S. Arifullah