THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 4546 of 2009. O R D E R: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order made in I.A. No. 359 of 2006 in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 dated 19.8.2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed by respondent-third party, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to come on record as defendant No.5 in the suit, was ordered. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondent is a third party to the suit. Petitioner laid suit in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale of the suit schedule property of Ac.5-95 cents. While that being so, respondent filed I.A. No. 359 of 2006 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to permit her to come on record as defendant No.5 in the suit and to contest the matter. Petitioner resisted the same on the ground that she has no right whatsoever in the suit schedule property, therefore, she cannot come on record and join herself as defendant. The trial Court, after a detailed consideration of the entire matter, came to the conclusion that the respondent has prima facie case on her side, therefore, she is a necessary and proper party to the suit and, thus, ordered the petition. The plea of the respondent therein was that she obtained money decree against the father of defendants 1 and 2 on 2.3.2001 and even before the decree, during pendency of the suit, attachment of the very same schedule property was ordered on 29.10.2003 and she filed E.P. No. 156 of 2006 in O.S. No. 41 of 2001. In that E.P., the petitioner filed E.A. No. 43 of 2006 stating that he had purchased schedule property from Metta Venkataramana Reddy and others. Having filed such application in E.A. No. 43 of 2006 in E.P. No. 156 of 2003 in O.S. No. 41 of 2001, he contended that the respondent-plaintiff, who is the decree holder has no interest whatsoever, therefore, she is not a necessary and proper party. This contention of the petitioner, in my considered opinion, has rightly been repelled by the trial Court and the I.A. was rightly allowed as prayed for. The trial Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 29-1-2010. MVB.