THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.546 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.107 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against his mother, the 2nd petitioner herein, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, in respect of the suit schedule property. The 2nd petitioner filed a written statement stating that the property was sold in favour of her daughter, the sole respondent herein. It appears that a compromise was entered into between two petitioners, who are the sole plaintiff and sole defendant in the suit, respectively. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.768 of 2010, under Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C., with a prayer to implead her as 2nd defendant to the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 13.12.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent. This is a rare case, in which the sole plaintiff and sole defendant in the suit have jointly opposed the application filed by the respondent under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. Another curious part of the matter is that the sole plaintiff is the son and the proposed defendant is the daughter of the defendant. It may be true that there is a compromise between the petitioners inter se, and that the same is reflected in the deposition of the 2nd petitioner. However, once the 2nd petitioner stated in her written statement that the property was sold to her daughter, the sole respondent herein, the latter is certainly a necessary party. The mere fact that the compromise decree would not be binding upon third parties cannot be a ground to refuse to implead the affected party as a defendant. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.02.2011. GJ