THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5006 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.08.2010, in I.A.No.147 of 2010 in O.S.No.70 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court – cum – Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 in the main suit and to make consequential amendments in the plaint as detailed in it, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit to enforce the contract based on an agreement of sale, dated 07.05.2003, with respect to suit schedule property against respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The said suit is coming up for trial. The defendant is said to have executed another agreement of sale, dated 24.03.2007, in favour of respondent No.2/proposed party in respect of the same property. When the petitioners filed the present petition to impead respondent No.2 as a party defendant in the suit, the same was dismissed on the ground that he is not a necessary party to the suit. Respondent No.2 herein also filed O.S.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur, against respondent No.1, directing him to execute the sale deed in favour of him basing on the agreement of sale, dated 24.03.2007. 4. Under Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., a party who is interested in the property under dispute can be brought on record at any stage of the suit. Impleading a proposed party as a party to a suit is for the purpose of effectively resolving the controversy in the suit. In a suit for specific performance based on an agreement of sale, the parties to the contract are only necessary and proper parties. Respondent No.2, who is sought to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, is not a party to the agreement of sale, dated 07.05.2003. Therefore, he cannot be said to be a necessary and proper party to the suit. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 5. But, in view of the fact that both the agreements of sale are in respect of the same property and if both the suits are being tried separately, there would be likelihood of conflict of decisions. In order to avoid conflict of decisions, both the suits have to be tried simultaneously and the judgment in both the suits have to be pronounced on the same day. 6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 12, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5006 OF 2010 Between: Pissary Rajendra Rao and others .....PETITIONERS AND Pissy Majunatha Rao and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5006 OF 2010 November 12, 2010