1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 310. 2008, made in I.A.No.113 of 2003, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal.

2. Thepetitioner in the present civil revision petition is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.635 of 2001. The petitioner had filed the said suit against the respondents 2 to 5, for specific performance, to enforce the agreement for sale, dated 23. 1991, by which the petitioner had agreed to purchase the suit property, measuring an extent of 600 Sq.Ft, for a sale consideration of Rs.48,000/-. It had also been stated that on the date of the agreement for sale the petitioner had paid Rs.20,000/-, as advance and the balance amount of Rs.28,000/-was to be paid, on or before 23. 1995, on receipt of which the respondents 2 to 5 were liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

3. On20.1.1995, a further sum of Rs.15,000/-had been paid by the petitioner and the period for performance had been extended till 11. 1999, by making the necessary endorsement. The petitioner has also stated that he is in possession of the suit property. However, the respondents 2 to 5 were evasive and not inclined to execute the sale deed. They had also threatened the petitioner asking him to vacate the suit property. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the suit, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, praying for a decree for specific performance.

4. While so the first respondent herein had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.113 of 2003, in the suit, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to implead him, as the 5th defendant in the said suit, stating that he had purchased the suit property from a third party. Even though the petitioner had resisted the said application by raising various grounds, the trial Court, by its order, dated 310. 2008, had allowed the interlocutory application filed by the first respondent. The petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition before this Court, challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, dated 310. 2008, made in I.A.No.113 of 2003.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 310. 2008, to implead the first respondent, as the fifth defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, is patently erroneous and manifestly unjust. The learned Judge had failed to note that a third party to the sale agreement is not entitled to be impleaded, as a party to the suit for specific performance filed for enforcing the agreement for sale. The learned Judge had failed to see that the presence of the first respondent is not necessary for the disposal of the suit claim, especially, when no relief is being claimed against the said third party.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

1. In Anil Kumar Singh V. Shivnath Mishra @ Gadasa Guru (1995 AIR SCW 1782), the Supreme Court had held as follows:

"The obtaining of a decree and acquiring the status as a co-owner during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, is not obtaining, by assignment or creation or by devolution, an interest. Therefore, Order 22, Rule 10 would not be applicable.

Equally, Order I, Rule 3 is not applicable to the suit for specific performance because admittedly, the respondent was not a party to the contract. Since the suit is based on agreement of sale said to have been executed by the sole defendant in the suit, the subsequent interest said to have been acquired by the respondent by virtue of a decree of the Court is not a matter arising out of or in respect of the same act or transaction or serious of acts or transactions in relation to the claim made in the suit.

In order that a person may be considered a necessary party, defendant to the suit, the conditions pre