THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2406 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2010, in I.A.No.235 of 2011 in O.S.No.90 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the 3rd respondent herein as 3rd defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents 1 and 2 for specific performance of suit agreement of sale, dated 09.06.2006, said to have been executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that the 1st respondent having failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter-2nd respondent on 21.04.2007. Petitioner alleges that subsequent to filing of the suit, 2nd defendant inturn sold the property in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant under registered sale deed, dated 19.04.2010. Petitioner- plaintiff therefore filed application for impleadment of the proposed 3rd defendant as a proper and necessary party to the suit. Respondents filed a counter opposing the same. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application observing that whatever judgment is passed against the 1st respondent, it would be binding on the subsequent purchaser also. 4. Order I Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to order impleadment of any person as plaintiff or defendant at any stage of the suit, when the presence of such person is considered necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. 5. In a decision reported in V.NARAYANA REDDY v. RANI NARAYANAN AND ANOTHER [1], this Court held as follows: “ The object of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I of C.P.C. is to bring before the Court all the persons who are parties to the disputes relating to one subject matter so that the disputes may all be determined at the same time without delay, inconvenience and expense of separate actions, so that the Court may be in a position to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit and the disputes between the parties attain finality. Order I, Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. confers wide discretion upon the Court. The provision is expressly provided in the C.P.C. so as to meet the situation and ensure that rendering of justice to the parties is not hampered”. 6. In the present case, petitioner filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of the suit agreement of sale said to have been executed by the 1st respondent. Even prior to filing of the suit, 1st respondent is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter-2nd respondent in respect of the suit property. Hence, 2nd respondent was also impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit. It is alleged that subsequent to filing of the suit, 2nd respondent inturn alienated the said property in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed, dated 19.04.2010. The proposed 3rd defendant is therefore alleged to have acquired rights in the suit property by virtue of his purchase under a registered sale deed. He would therefore become both a proper and necessary party to the suit. As he is claiming rights in the suit property, any adjudication of the dispute in his absence would therefore be ineffective and incomplete. Having regard to the fact that valuable rights of the parties in the immovable property are involved and that the third party rights appear to have been created in favour of the proposed 3rd defendant, though subsequent to filing of the suit, it is considered that the proposed 3rd defendant is not a proper and necessary party to the suit and his impleadment would be necessary for an effective, complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute between all the parties. Petitioner-plaintiff is therefore permitted to implead the 3rd respondent as 3rd defendant in the suit. On such impleadment, 3rd respondent would be entitled to file a written statement and the plaintiff would be at liberty to file a rejoinder, if he chooses to. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year, 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at an earlier date. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.235 of 2010 stands allowed. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2011. Tsy [1] 2009 (4) ALD 13