This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2011, passed in I.A.No.942 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, dismissing the petition for impleadment of the petitioners as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

2. (a) Shaik Fakruddin-1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and Kondakkagari Nagulamma-2nd respondent herein is the sole defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2010 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2010, in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.40,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.39,90,000/- on or before 30.08.2010 and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant refused to receive the balance sale consideration offered by the plaintiff and to execute a registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the suit read as hereunder:

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

(a) to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.39,90,000-00 from the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within a time fixed by the court, failing which the Hon’ble Court may execute such a regular sale deed on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

(b) to direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit;

(c) to pass such other relief or reliefs, as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the suit.”

Pending the suit, the petitioners herein viz., Mitta Sanjeeva Reddy and Mitta Veera Nagireddy filed I.A.No.942 of 2010 seeking their impleadment as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The case of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.942 of 2010 is that the sole defendant in the suit has no right over the suit schedule property to execute an agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2010, in favour of the plaintiff. The suit agreement is not true, valid and genuine. Notices have been exchanged between the sole defendant and the petitioners. Para.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment petition needs to be noted and it is thus:

“3. I humbly beg to submit that when remours were spread out at the suit village about the intended mischievous actions of the sole defendant K.Nagulamma W/o.Manga Reddy, resident of Kondakkagaripalli of Gurramkonda (PO) and Mandal about her threat of interference and alleged alienations, myself, the 2nd petitioner herein and two others got made paper publication in Eenadu daily of Kadapa District Edition, Rayachoty zone on 24.8.2010 with true and correct facts, appraising the public of our absolute rights and title over the suit properties herein along with other properties and requested the general public not to enter into any transactions or documents with the defendant. The said paper publication dated 24.8.2010 is filed herewith which may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit for all purposes. The contents of the said paper publication dated 24.8.2010 were to the full knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendant herein. They cannot dis-own the contents of them. The sole defendant herein got made a reply publication in the same paper on 1.9.2010 through her counsel Sri N.S.N.Prasad, Advocate, Madanapalli with all false, mischievous and baseless allegations. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, the said reply publication dated 1.9.2010 is filed, may kindly be perused for appreciation of the facts. It is not out of context to submit here that in the above reply paper publicati