THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3306 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2011 in I.A. No.669 of 2011 in O.S. NO.226 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying to add the petitioners as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, was dismissed on the ground that it is filed only to drag on the proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the second respondent/defendant for enforcement of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the latter in favour of the former. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision in Sumtibai & others v. Paras Finance Co.,[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 14) “In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturi case { (2005) 6 SCC 733 } is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wail until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.” The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that in the said case, one of the parties to the agreement died and the proposed parties therein, who are legal representatives of one of the parties, wanted to come on record. But, in the case on hand, the petitioners/proposed parties are not parties to the contract in the suit. Their claim is that the property covered under the agreement of sale is ancestral property and therefore they want to come on record so as to declare their rights. Since the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale and as the issues in a suit for specific performance are entire different viz. whether the agreement of sale is true and correct and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, rights of the petitioners cannot be determined in this suit. Further more, when the suit is at the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed the present application seeking to come on record as defendants 2 to 4. It is not their case that they are unaware of the pendency of the suit for all the time. Therefore, considering these aspects, the trial court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 18.08.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3306 OF 2011 18.08.2011 [1] (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 82