These revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 26-06-2009, in I.A.No.740 of 2008 in O.s.No.3840 of 2004, on the file of the 1't Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC was allowed and the proposed party was added as 2nd defendant instead of 3rd plaintiff in the suit.

2. Heard both the counsel.

3. The proposed party filed the above application under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC to implead him as 3rd plaintiff in the suit stating that the plaintiffs sold a portion of premises No.16-7-737, Kattal Guda, near Kamal Talkies, Hyderabad, admeasuring 885 sq. yards under a registered sale deed, dated 25-03-1994 and possession was delivered to him with all easementary rights including right to collect rents and evict the tenants. That petition was partly allowed impleading the proposed party as 2nd defendant instead 'of 3rd plaintiff in the suit. Aggrieved by the order, plaintiffs filed CRP No.3852 of 2009, whereas proposed party filed CRP No.5254 of 2009.

4. Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC reads thus:

"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 whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

5. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co Regd. Partnership Firm Beawe (Raj.) through Mankanwar (Smt) w/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead) and others (1) 2007 (6) ALT 20 (SC) = 2007 (10) SCC 82, wherein explaining the decision reported in Kasturi v lyyaperuillal and others (2) 2005 (4) ALT 19 (SC) = 2005 (4) SCJ 196 = (2005) 6 SCC 733 = 2005 (3) ALD 83 (SC), it was held thus (para 14):

" In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that Kasturi case is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced."

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-plaintiffs relied on a decision reported in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Mr. Murli and another (3) AIR 2002 SC 1061 = 2002 (4) ALO (SC) = 2002 (2) ALT 24.2 (ON SC), wherein it was held thus:

"Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlord-tenant suit. The relationship of Municipal Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly, the question of title between Hemlata Mohan and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings."

7. He also relied on a decision reported in Gudula Sitaratnam v. Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu and others (4) 2000 (2) ALT 608 = 2000 (3) ALO 592, wherein it was held thus:

"It may be mentioned here that the suit was for eviction of a tenant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that in fact, the defendants-tenants have not disputed the title of the plaintiffs in the suit. At any rate, in a suit for eviction filed by the owner against his tenant, the question that would