1. This revision is filed against the order dated 22-09-2017 in I.A.No.388 of 2015 in O.S.No.13 of 201, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for impleading the proposed respondent as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.13 of 2014 is dismissed.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of revision are as under:

The petitioner filed O.S.No.13 of 2014 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09-01-2012 against respondents 1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule properties. The respondents 1 and 2 entered into agreement of sale on 09-01-2012 to sell the suit schedule land with the petitioner. After execution of agreement of sale, respondents 1 and 2 created equitable mortgage in favour of respondent No.3 on 28-05-2013 to defeat the right and interest of the petitioner in the suit schedule property, but the same is not valid and binding on the petitioner. The respondents attempted to bring the suit schedule land for sale under the guise of equitable mortgage by initiating proceedings at Hyderabad. As such, respondent No.3 is necessary party for adjudication of lis in the suit.

3. Though notice was served in the trial Court, respondent No.3 has not contested the present application.

4. It is only respondents 1 and 2 herein contested the revision by filing counter affidavit stating that the suit agreement is a forged and fabricated document by the petitioner. These respondents denied the execution of agreement of sale in favour of proposed defendant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 1 and 2 executed equitable mortgage on 28-05-2013 in favour of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 would be claiming rights in under the said mortgage. He also submits that the plaintiff filed criminal case against respondents 1 and 2 only on the said aspect and the same is registered, as such the proposed defendant is a necessary party. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of Adapa Venkateswara Rao v. Mohammad SulemanAIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 50, G.Padmavati v. G.Balraj1999(1) ALT 152 and Akula Seshamma v. P.Eswaraiah2001(2) ALT 477.

6. Though notice is served on respondent No.3/proposed defendant No.3, there is no appearance for him in this revision.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that in a suit for specific performance, a third party to an agreement cannot be impleaded, as such without the presence of proposed defendant No.3 also the suit can effectively be adjudicated.

8. It is to be seen that in this case, admittedly the proposed defendant No.3 is a third party to the agreement of sale said to have been executed by respondents 1 and 2 on 09-01-2012 in favour of petitioner. In the judgment of Adapa Venkateswara Rao v. Mohammad Suleman cited (1 supra) this Court held as under:

4. In a later decision reported in Ramesh Chandra Sarada v. Phoolchand Soni, 1981 (1) An WR 427, Justice Punnayya, had occasion to consider whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. are applicable to a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The learned Judge considered a catena of case law and held as follows:

"It is, therefore, clear that all the parties who have direct interest in the property in respect of which specific performance is sought for should be impleaded for the effective and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit to avoid multiplicity of suits or proceedings".

5. In a subsequent decision reported in Gyaneshwar Rao v. Mahmood Shareef, Justice Seetharam Reddy, 1982 (1) An LT 195: (AIR 1982 AP 155), had also occasion to consider the application of the provisions of order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The learned Judge on an elaborate consideration of several decisions cited at the bar, including the decision reported in Razi Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886 deducing the following principles, held thus at Page 162 (of AIR 1982):

"On a conspectus of the ab