THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.1002 OF 2010 BETWEEN: I.Nagender son of late I.Shivaiah and another .. petitioners vs. W.G.Krishna Raj and another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.1002 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20- 02-2010 in I.A.No.216 of 2010 in O.S.No.60 of 2008 of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereby and whereunder the petition, to implead the petitioners as proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit, was dismissed on the ground that neither they are necessary nor proper parties in the suit and their rights would not be effected even if they are not impleaded. Order. I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code,1908 read as under:- “Court may strike out or add parties:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” So the above provision makes it clear that to adjudicate upon and settle all the issues involved in the suit, the presence of the party is necessary. Admittedly, the suit is filed basing on an agreement of sale. The petitioners claimed that they got a share in the property, for which the proposed parties already filed a suit for partition. Insofar as the present suit is concerned, the proposed defendants are not necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. In a suit for specific performance the issue is whether the agreement of sale is correct and whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Though the proposed parties are claiming a share in the property covered by agreement of sale, but still their rights would not be effected in any manner unless and until they succeed in the suit filed by them. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the application. The said order needs no interference by this Court in view of the fact that the proposed parties are not brought on record and the decree that may be passed by the civil court does not bind the proposed parties. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU,J 1st June,2010 TSNR