1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed, questioning the order dated 31.7.2009 made in I.A.No.119 of 2009 in O.S.No.234 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore district, whereunder the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to add the first respondent as party defendant to the suit, was allowed.

2. Petitioners are plaintiffs and second respondent is defendant in the suit O.S.No.234 of 2008. First respondent is third party to the suit. Petitioners laid the above suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 2.8.1989 purported to have been executed by second respondent. The said suit is pending and during the pendency of suit, first respondent filed the present I.A. under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to add her as defendant to the suit. Petitioners resisted the same. After a detailed consideration of the arguments on both sides and other material made available on record, the Court below, by impugned order allowed the application as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed.

3. It is the contention of the first respondent that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, which were originally belongs to Guntamadugu Subba Raju S/o Venkata Raju and his sons and she purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.9.2008 and took possession of the same. Ever since the date of purchase, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners and second respondent are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. It is further stated that previously petitioners 2 and 3 filed a suit against her husband; Guntamadugu Subba Raju and others for permanent injunction in O.S.No.69 of 2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kota, which is still pending. According to first respondent, when the said suit is pending, petitioners again filed the present suit for specific performance against respondent No.2, who is unconnected to the proceedings and got himself set ex parte only to divert the circumstances. This fact came to the knowledge of the first respondent recently. Further, on 16.10.2008 second respondent executed a consent letter in favour of vendor of first respondent relinquishing his right.

4. Petitioners filed a detailed counter in the said I.A. denying the allegations made by the first respondent and stated that they filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 2.8.1989 executed by Muppalla Narasa Raju, who is the elder brother of second respondent in favour of Lekkala Venkata Subamma, who is the wife of first petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 and 3. It is further stated that Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC does not permit to add first respondent as party defendant to the suit and such petition is not maintainable. Further, the Apex Court has categorically held that in a suit for specific performance, third party/stranger claiming independent title and possession is neither necessary nor proper party and therefore, not entitled to add as party to the suit.

5. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record.

6. Admittedly, I.A.No.119 of 2009 was filed by a third party to the suit (first respondent) under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record as defendant in the suit. In this context, it may be first necessary to notice Order I Rule 10(2), which reads as under:

“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 wh