THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4570 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 02.09.2009 in I.A.No.3654 of 2008 in O.S.No.126 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner/third party, under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking to implead her as defendant No.7 in the suit being O.S.No.126 of 2003, was dismissed. Petitioner herein is the third party to the suit, respondents 1 to 15 are the plaintiffs and respondents 16 to 21 are the defendants in the suit being O.S.No.126 of 2003, filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner has come up with the present I.A.No.3654 of 2008, to implead her as defendant No.7 in the suit. The petitioner claimed that though she is entitled to get 1/4th share in the property covered by the agreement of sale, which belonged to her father, along with her brothers, who are shown as respondents 16 and 17, the respondents 1 to 15/plaintiffs 1 to 15 obtained the agreement of sale from her brothers even for her 1/4th share also, and hence, she is a necessary party to the suit. Respondents 2 to 5 and 7 to 15/plaintiffs 2 to 5 and 7 to 15 respectively filed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.807 of 2008 on the file of I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition. The Court below, after hearing both sides and considering the matter in detail, dismissed the petition by the impugned order dated 02.09.2009, holding that the petitioner is at liberty to prove her title in the partition suit filed by her, which is pending, and even if the decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale is passed in the present suit, it will not affect her right, title and interest in respect of the contracted property and no prejudice would be caused to her even if she is not impleaded in the present suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is having interest in the property covered by the agreement of sale, she is a necessary and proper party to the present suit, and in support of the said argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chunchu Narayana v. K.Srinivasulu[1] and P.Ram Mohan v. Dr.Purnachandra[2]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In the present suit filed for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale, executed by respondents 1 to 15 in favour of respondents 16 to 21, the petitioner claiming that she has got 1/4th share over the property covered by the agreement of sale, filed the present I.A. seeking her impleadment as defendant No.7 in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 807 of 2008 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition of the property covered by the alleged agreement of sale. Whether the petitioner has got any share in the property, which is covered by the agreement of sale, is a question that has to be decided in the suit for partition filed by her. The present suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale is between the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 15 and defendant Nos.1 to 6/respondent Nos.16 to 21, and the petitioner being a stranger to it, the Court below following the judgment of the apex Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others[3], wherein it was held that third party/stranger claiming independent title and possession over the contracted property under the agreement of sale, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead her as defendant No.7, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, and if the petitioner is to be impleaded, the very nature of the suit for specific performance of the agreement would be changed completely. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 22.01.2010 v v [1] 2006 (4) ALD 73 [2] 2007 (3) ALD 109 [3] AIR 2005 S.C.2813