THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1042 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed S.F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2008, against respondents 2 and 3 herein, under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). The case of the 1st respondent is that, the 2nd respondent obtained loan from it, by depositing the title deeds in respect of the property owned by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent is said to have committed default and for recovery thereof, the proceedings were initiated. The petitioner filed I.A.No.560 of 2008, under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to add him as respondent No.3 in the O.P. According to the petitioner, the property, which is the subject matter of the O.P., was originally owned by the father of the 3rd respondent herein and he, in turn, executed a Will, dated 25.09.1979 in favour of the mother of the 3rd respondent. That lady is said to have executed a sale deed, dated 15.06.2006, in favour of the petitioner. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through its order, dated 15.12.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri V.R.Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 31 of the Act. If the facts pleaded by the 1st respondent are proved, the property, which is the subject matter of the O.P., needs to be brought to sale. The case of the petitioner is that he acquired title in respect of that very property. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., only on the ground that the proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, are akin to execution petition. Even assuming that the O.P. partakes the character of an E.P., it is not as if the third parties cannot be permitted to canvass their rights in such proceedings. It is not out of place to mention that Rules 58 and 97 of Order XXI of C.P.C., very much create rights in favour of third parties. A perusal of those provisions discloses that the claims made by the third parties are decided, as though they are independent suits. Such being the rights conferred on third parties, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner to get himself impleaded. It is a different matter as to whether the petitioner can prove his title to the property at all. The evidence that may be adduced by the parties needs to be taken into account, while deciding the matter. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.560 of 2008 is allowed and the petitioner is added as respondent No.3 to S.F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2008. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.04.2010. GJ