ORDER:

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2015 filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 20.11.2019 of learned Judge, Family Court- Cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.757 of 2019 in O.S.No.74 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court allowed the application of a third party to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Respondent No.1 is the third party who was permitted to be impleaded before the trial Court as one of the defendants. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the suit.

2. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondents submitted arguments.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

O.S.No.74 of 2015 is a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 25.06.2015 alleged to have been executed by both the defendants in the suit. It is stated that defendant No.2 is the registered title holder of property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 06.11.2014. Though defendant No.2 alone is the owner of the property, the agreement for sale was entered into not only by him but also by his mother/defendant No.1 by way of abundant caution. The issues in the suit were settled and plaintiff adduced evidence on her behalf. While the suit was coming up for evidence on behalf of the defendants, a third party filed I.A.No.757 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking her impleadment as one of the defendants. This impleading party is the daughter of defendant No.1 and sister of defendant No.2. She has sought for her impleadment stating that the property covered by the agreement for sale is not the self-acquired property of her brother/defendant No.2 and it is joint family property and thus without her participation, the other sharers could not enter into an agreement for sale and the pending suit for specific performance if decreed would affect her rights over immovable property over which she had a right and interest. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit did not object her impleadment. It may be noted that in their pleadings, the defendants alleged that the property covered by the agreement for sale is joint family property. Plaintiff in the suit contested the impleadment application stating that she is dominus litis and at a belated stage, this impleadment petition is filed with an oblique motive to protract the proceedings and defendant Nos.1 and 2 colluded with the proposed party and indulged in this unnecessary litigation.

4. Learned trial Court having considered the rival submissions held that it acknowledges the contentions of the plaintiff that in a suit for specific performance, plaintiff is the dominus litis and parties cannot be impleaded unnecessarily and that when the trial was half way through relatively at a belated stage, the application came to be filed by a third party who is none other than one of the family members of the defendants who are already litigating in the suit. However, the learned trial Court recorded that since the impleading party has shown a semblance of right in her favour over the property that is covered by the agreement for sale, it is in the interest of justice to permit her to join. With those reasonings, it allowed the application.

5. As against that, the plaintiff in this revision petition contended that the order of the learned trial Court is erroneous and the reasoning given by the trial Court is based on irrelevant considerations. That the third party is not one of the signatories to the agreement for sale and therefore she is not a necessary party and that the learned trial Court failed to comprehend the true purport of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order occasioned failure of Justice and requires interfer