IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, September 08, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini C.R.P.No. 3185 of 2011 Between: Bajranglal Agarwal …Petitioner and O. Laxminaryana and another …Respondents The Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini C.R.P.No. 3185 of 2011 O r d e r: This revision petition is directed against the order dated: 31-03-2011 in I.A.No. 495 of 2010 in O.S.No. 2955 of 2006 on the file of the court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rang Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As could be seen from the material available on record, the first respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated:09-04-1999 allegedly executed by the second respondent herein. The defendant/2nd respondent herein filed a written statement contending that the suit property was already sold to a third party under a registered sale deed. Alleging that the sale deed was fabricated, the plaintiff/first respondent herein filed I.A.No. 495 of 2010 to implead the person in whose favour the suit property was claimed to have been transferred, as defendant No.2. The said application was allowed by order dated: 31.3.2011 and aggrieved by the same; the present revision is filed by the impleaded-2nd defendant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the court below ought not to have allowed the implead petition in the absence of a specific plea that the revision petitioner/impleaded defendant was not a transferee under good faith. It is further contended that as no relief is sought against the impleaded defendant and the plaintiff has not even filed an application for amendment of the plaint, the order under revision is liable to be set aside on that ground also. I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The revision petitioner in his counter to I.A.No. 495 of 2010 has admitted the subsequent transfer in his favour under a registered sale deed. Thus he claims title to the suit property through the second respondent herein (defendant in the suit) by virtue of a subsequent transaction. Therefore, as rightly held by the court below, the revision petitioner is a proper and necessary party to enable the court to completely and effectively adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which apparently relate to the merits of the case need not be gone into at this stage. The petitioner may raise such objections before the court below, if so advised. Hence interference by this court is not warranted and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. September 8, 2011. *BVS