The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.2578 of 2009 in O.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, dated 20-04-2010 allowing the petition for impleadment of the 1st respondent herein as the 9th defendant in the suit.

The suit for specific performance between the revision petitioner and the other respondents in O.S.No.55 of 2008 is pending trial and the 1st respondent herein came up with this petition claiming that while he and his three brothers are sons of Rami Reddy, the respondents 2 to 9 herein are the heirs of Siddipeta Shivaiah. Rami Reddy and Shivaiah are natural brothers and legal heirs of Balaiah. Balaiah was the original owner and pattedar of the lands in question and there was no partition between Shivaiah and Rami Reddy. After the death of Balaiah, the joint possession and enjoyment between the children and brothers continued and the 1st respondent herein claimed that he came to know about the sale of some agricultural land by respondents 2 to 9 herein under document No.4297 of 2008/ a registered sale deed and also sale of Ac.5.16 guntas in Sy.No.144 in favour of the plaintiff though the total share of respondents 2 to 9 herein is only Ac.4.36 guntas. As they have sold the lands beyond their share, he sought himself to be impleaded as a party to the suit.

The plaintiff resisted the request of the 1st respondent herein claiming that the entire revenue records show that the lands were sub-divided as per the possession and enjoyment of the parties and the plaintiff/revision petitioner has no knowledge about O.S.No.56 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent herein for partition of property against the other family members. The revision petitioner stated that the 5th defendant/Sudhakar Reddy filed O.S.No.54 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhongir, making the plaintiff also as a defendant and the said suit was dismissed on 28-12-2007 holding that there was partition of all properties earlier. The third party to the suit without any right in the suit schedule property cannot attempt to implead himself without any privity of contract between him and the plaintiff and, therefore, he desired the petition to be dismissed with costs.

The trial Court in the impugned order referred to the factual background for the suit for specific performance and noted that the suit was coming up for framing of issues with the defendants 7 and 8 remaining ex parte and the other defendants filing a written statement. The trial Court felt that as the 1st respondent herein claimed to be having half share in the land along with his brothers, while respondents 2 to 9 got remaining half share in the same property and as O.S.No.56 of 2008 is pending, the 1st respondent herein should be permitted to come on record for proper adjudication in this regard. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the application.

The revision petitioner contends herein that the trial Court committed a manifest illegality in considering the request of the third party claiming interest adverse to the vendor to be impleaded as a party to the suit for specific performance, for which he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. The petitioner contended that the issues, which arise for consideration and determination of the suit for specific performance, are only whether the agreement of sale is enforceable and whether specific performance can be ordered and no inter se disputes between the vendors and the third parties can be adjudicated and decided in the suit. The revision petitioner contended that in the light of the precedential law from the Apex Court and this Court, the third party could not have been brought on record, more so, in the second round of litigation invented by him. Therefore, the revision petitioner desired that the impugned order be reversed.

Sri K. V. Subramanya Narusu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri J. Rajeswar, learned counsel