THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4933 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 04.08.2010, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 349 of 2010 in O.S. No. 127 of 2005, filed by the petitioners, praying to permit them to come on record as party-defendants to the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under revision. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.06.2002 said to have been executed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Though the petitioners contend that the property covered by the agreement of sale is a joint family property and they being co- parceners, have a share in the joint family property, and as such, the agreement of sale, executed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, is not enforceable, particularly as on the date when the agreement of sale was executed, their grandfather was alive, the fact remains, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 disputed the said contention of the petitioners. Though respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have taken a plea that the joint family properties were already partitioned and that suit in O.S. No. 479 of 1995 was instituted, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 6, the fact remains, the petitioners did not deny such plea of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Be that as it may, if according to the petitioners, they have a share in the property covered by the agreement of sale in question, their remedy is to file separate suit for partition, but they cannot seek to get themselves impleaded as party-defendants in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for specific agreement of sale, particularly when the enquiry in suit for specific performance is limited to ascertain as to whether agreement was executed by the defendants, and if so whether the plaintiffs are willing to perform their part of the contract. This apart, it is the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that petitioner No.1 is an attesting witness to the suit agreement as well as receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, the petitioners did not deny this aspect of the matter. The petitioners having not denied the stands taken by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the counters, as noted above, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioners are very much aware of the execution of the agreement of sale by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and their plea that they came to know of the agreement of sale very recently cannot be believed, and accordingly dismissed the present application, holding that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary party to the suit, and no exception can be taken thereto. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 3rd December, 2010 KSR