Petitioner herein claiming a right adverse to the plaintiff in the suit.

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam dismissing I.A.No.31 of 2013 in O.S.No.14 of 2011 filed by the third parties/petitioners herein under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as Code).

2. Heard Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 apart from perusing the material available on record.

3. Respondent No.1 instituted O.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for specific performance of contract of sale dated 09.03.2010 said to have been executed by them in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents situated in Survey Nos.142/16 to 21 and 135/15 to 17 of Balaga Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District. In the said suit, the petitioners herein, who are the daughter and father and who are third parties to the suit proceedings filed I.A.No.31 of 2013 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code, seeking permission of the Court to add themselves as defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and the defendants/respondent Nos.2 to 4 resisted the said petition by filing counters. The learned I Additional District Judge, by virtue of an order dated 24.06.2013 dismissed the said I.A.No.31 of 2013. Calling in question the validity and the legal acceptability of the said order, the present revision has been preferred.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under revision is erroneous and contrary to law and that the petitioners herein are proper and necessary parties to the suit and that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit property and that the same would be evident from the revenue records such as pattadar passbooks, title deeds and adangals etc. The learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.157 of 2009 for permanent injunction wherein they filed I.A.No.306 of 2009 for temporary injunction and that the same was dismissed observing that the petitioners herein are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein have colluded with respondent No.1 herein, which resulted in filing of the present suit and that in order to protect their interest in the property, the presence of the petitioners herein in the present suit is very much necessary. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments in Y.Venkata Reddy and others v. A.P.State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and others , Basant Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni and others and Racharla Thirupathi and others v. Gundala Shobha Rani and others .

5. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein have set up the petitioners to defeat the right of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and that the petitioners herein are neither necessary nor proper parties for the suit since they are not parties to the suit agreement of sale and if they have any right in the property, they have to file another independent suit and such rights cannot be adjudicated in the present suit. The learned counsel further contends that the order passed by the Court below is in conformity with the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 places reliance on the judgment in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora contends that the claim or grievance of the petitioners he