THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1116 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dt. 25.2.2011 in I.A.No. 488 of 2008 in O.S.No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Razole whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order I Rule 10 r/w 151 C.P.C. The revision petitioner is a third party to O.S.No. 39 of 2008. He filed I.A.No. 488 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 r/w 151 C.P.C. to come on record as the 3rd defendant in the suit. O.S.No. 39 of 2008 was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the respondents 2 and 3 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt. 28.5.1992 executed by Smt. Syamalamba, the mother of the revision petitioner and grand mother of 3rd respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that the agreement of sale is nominal and without consideration wherein his mother asserted to have inherited the property under a will dt. 10.8.1992 claiming it to be her ancestral property. Earlier the petitioner had filed O.S.No. 243 of 2001 before the Junior Civil Judge, Razole for partition of the suit schedule properties including the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 39 of 2008 against the respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking partition of the properties of his mother Syamalamba. The property is common in O.S.No. 39 of 2008 and in the suit O.S.No. 243 of 2001 filed by the petitioner. Asserting that the outcome of O.S.No. 39 of 2008 would adversely affect his interest and his claims in O.S.No. 243 of 2001, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 488 of 2008 seeking to come on record as the 3rd defendant. The court below rejected his application holding that the revision petitioner was neither a vendor nor a vendee to the agreement of sale and therefore is not a necessary party to the present suit. This court discerns no error either in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since the petitioner is not a party to O.S.No. 39 of 2008, the judgement in the said suit would not bind him in O.S.No. 243 of 2001 for the Judgement in O.S.No. 39 of 2008 is not a Judgement in rem. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 10.6.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1116 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 10.6.2011.