THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.2939 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.126 of 2006 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner and the second respondent, for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 20.04.2006 and the same is pending. He filed S.A.No.128 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, against Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and the petitioner, seeking to declare the tender-cum-auction notice, dated 08.10.2007, issued by the Bank to sell the suit schedule property, as illegal and consequently for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the credit of O.S.No.126 of 2006. Through the Order, dated 31.07.2008, the said application was allowed and the Bank was directed to redeliver the property to the first respondent on receiving the amount deposited in the credit of O.S.No.126 of 2006. Hence, the petitioner filed Unnumbered I.A. /2009 in O.S.No.126 of 2006 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Visakhapatnam, as defendant No.3 in the suit, since item No.1 of the suit schedule property is in possession of the said Bank. The trial Court having observed that there is no necessity to implead the Bank as the factum of possession of item No.1 of agreement of sale by the said Bank can be proved by examining the concerned Bank officials, rejected the unnumbered I.A. Hence the Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. It is, no doubt, true that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the Court has discretionary power either to grant decree for specific performance or to refund the amount. Since the dispute is in between the first respondent and the petitioner and the second defendant for execution of an agreement of sale, the Bank cannot be impleaded as party defendant No.3 in the suit. As rightly held by the trial Court, whether item No.1 of the sale agreement is in possession of the Bank or not shall be considered during the course of trial. Hence, I do not find any reason warranting interference by this Court in the order impugned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 09.10.2009 sj