1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Court of the Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, dismissing I.A. No. 26 of 2012 in O.S. No. 120 of 2011 filed by the third parties/petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present revision are as under:-

3. The 1st respondent herein instituted the suit, being O.S. No. 120 of 2011, against the respondents 2 to 4 herein seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Decree be passed directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees for A, B and C schedule properties.

(b) That in the event of the failure of the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff may be permitted to deposit the same in this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint a commissioner to execute the sale deed as prayed for.

(c) That in the event of this Hon’ble Court come to a conclusion that decree for specific performance can not be granted, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant a money decree for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- against the defendants person and property with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(d) Perpetual injunction be granted restraining the defendants, their agent, servants or any other person on their behalf from alienating the A, B and C Schedule properties in any manner to any third parties.

(e) Perpetual injunction be granted restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, nominees or any person on their behalf from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over Schedule A, B and C properties.

(f) Cost of the suit be awarded.

(g) Any other relief or reliefs be granted.

4. Plaint schedule properties are agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.15-13 guntas in S. No. 120/7, 120/9 (old) and New S. Nos. 120/29, 120/30 and Ac.7.27 guntas situated in Sy. No. 120/13 (old) and Sy. No. 120/32 (new) of Peddakanjarla village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The suit agreement of sale is dated 09.11.1999 and the 1st respondent herein instituted the present suit on 22.12.2011. The petitioners herein who are third parties to the suit filed the present I.A. No. 26 of 2012 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking their impleadment in the suit as defendants 4 to 6. The case of the petitioners, as per the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. is that the defendants 1 to 3 respondents 2 to 4 sold the suit schedule properties in their favour by way of registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide Document No. 8701 of 2011 dated 06.08.2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy ever since they are in absolute peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; the alleged manager of the pattadar also filed similar suit in O.S. No. 340 of 2011 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, impleading the petitioners also as defendants; the petitioners came to know of the filing of the present suit recently and they are bona fide purchasers and are just and necessary parties and their rights will be affected severely which cannot be compensated in any manner.

5. Resisting the said I.A. No. 26 of 2012, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed counter affidavit, contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable and that he purchased the property by way of an agreement of sale dated 09.11.1999 from the defendants 1 to 3 and paid more than 85% of the sale consideration and that the defendants delivered actual and physical possession to him and that the alleged agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2011 was created by impersonating the signatures of defendants 1 to 3 and that he purc