ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.2183 of 2018 in O.S.No.278 of 2013 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. I.A.No.2183 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant No.8, under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) praying to implead her as defendant No.8 in O.S.No.278 of 2013 which is filed for partition of suit schedule properties. The contention of petitioner in the said petition is that defendants 5 and 6 are sons of defendant No.3 and along with them, their mother acquired the suit schedule property by way of registered partition deed bearing document No.3040 of 2012 dated 14.09.2012 and they have entered into an agreement of sale on 10.12.2016 with the petitioner/proposed defendant. The contention of the petitioner/proposed defendant is that the defendants 5 and 6 along with their mother have taken almost total sale consideration for the purpose of performing the marriage of sister of defendants 5 and 6 namely P.Pallavi and thereafter possession was also delivered to her after receiving full consideration and she in possession and enjoyment of the property. But the respondents therein in collusion with other defendants filed the present suit for partition. As such, she is a necessary party to the said suit.

3. The respondents therein filed counter stating that there is no truth in the allegation leveled in the petition and they have denied execution of agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner/proposed defendant, receiving part sale consideration and delivery of possession.

4. Having considered the averments of the petition and counter, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.2183 of 2018 observing that the third party is having interest in the suit schedule property. As such, she is proper and necessary party to the suit in O.S.No.278 of 2013.

5. Against the said order, the present revision is filed stating that in a suit for partition, the third party who is not belonging to the family is not a necessary party. If at all, the petitioner therein is having any interest, she has to file suit for specific performance and there is also an averment in her petition that she has already filed a suit for specific performance against the plaintiffs and the same is pending. As there is an agreement of sale, even without admitting the same as genuine, the only remedy available to her is to file suit for specific performance and trial Court erred in holding that proposed defendant No.8 has established her interest over the suit schedule property and she is claiming rights basing on agreement of sale which is not a concluded contract and no registered sale deed is existing in her name to claim right. Therefore, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC. As such, prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order.

6. Heard Smt Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri Deepak Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri V.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the party who filed petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not their family member. According to the proposed defendant, she entered into agreement of sale during pendency of the suit and agreement of sale cannot confer any rights on the parties. Therefore, she is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. As such, prayed the Court to allow this revision by setting aside the order of the trial Court.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent/3rd party is that as the respondent is having interest in the suit schedule property, she has also filed suit for specific performance. If this suit is decided without adding her as a party, her rights will be effected