THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2254 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.246 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement stated to have been executed by the respondent, who is his brother. It is his case that the respondent/defendant entered written agreement with the petitioner and agreed to handover the possession with all rights with regard to land admeasuring Acs.2.15 guntas vide agreement, dated 16.02.2008. The suit is being contested by the respondent disputing the nature of the alleged agreement. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.86 of 2010 to implead Smt. Gajula Siddamma, Wife of Veeraiah, as second defendant in the suit, on the ground that the respondent/defendant has transferred his interest in favour of the proposed party, as such, she is necessary and proper party to the suit. The Court below by the impugned order rejected the said I.A. filed by the petitioner. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the subject matter of the agreement is the land, which is transferred to the proposed respondent, she is necessary and proper party to the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no agreement entered by the respondent to handover the possession of the land in question. It is also submitted that in any event, having regard to the issue to be decided in the suit, the proposed respondent is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in the case of BASANT KUMAR SONI v. MUKUND DAS SONI AND OTHERS[1]. I have perused the order passed by the Court below and also the afore-cited order. In this case, it is to be noticed that the respondent entered an agreement with the petitioner on 16.02.2008 and he agreed to hand over the possession of land admeasuring Acs.2.15 guntas. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the only issue to be decided is whether there is an agreement executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner with regard to transfer of the land in question. It is also to be noticed that subsequent transfer alleged to have been made by the respondent in favour of the proposed respondent is not the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the proposed respondent is not a necessary party to resolve the issue, which arises for consideration, having regard to the pleadings of the parties. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on BASANT KUMAR SONI’s case (1 supra), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not render any assistance in support of his argument. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th JULY, 2011. kvni [1] 2010(4) ALD 490