THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3844 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.110 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. After the suit was filed, he came to know that the petitioner herein obtained a sale deed in respect of the same property by filing a suit for specific performance. In that view of the matter, he filed I.A.No.1046 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C with a prayer to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.4 to the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 16.07.2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri K.Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application filed by respondent No.1 was totally untenable inasmuch as he not only prayed for addition of the petitioner as defendant No.4, but also permission to amend the plaint on certain vital aspects touching the rights of the petitioner. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal[1], the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be impleaded in a suit being a stranger to the contract between respondent No.1 on the one hand and respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the other. Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the presence of the petitioner is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the suit. He further submits that the trial Court has taken various factual and legal aspects into account while passing the order under revision and it does not warrant interference. Before undertaking further discussion as to the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the trial Court, the contents of I.A.No.1046 of 2009 need to be noted. Apart from making a prayer for impleading the petitioner herein as defendant No.4, respondent No.1 sought for permission to amend the plaint on several respects. The averments as to the legality of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner were also included. In an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., no other relief can be claimed except that the person named therein be added as a party. Therefore, the application of the petitioner in so far as it contained the reliefs over and above the one for addition of the petitioner as defendant No.4 must be eschewed from consideration. The petitioner was sought to be added as a party on the ground that he obtained a sale deed in respect of the same property by filing a suit for specific performance. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The presence of the petitioner is very much essential. The reason is that as of now, the title vests in him and any adjudication in the present suit can take place effectively only in the presence of the petitioner. In a way, the presence of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is secondary. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to a case where a third party to a suit for specific performance wanted to get himself impleaded by claiming certain rights vis-à-vis the plaintiff. The Honb’le Supreme Court took a view that being a stranger to the contract between the parties to the suit nor having any claim vis-à-vis the suit schedule property, a third party cannot be permitted to be added. Such is not the case here. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, upholding the order passed by the trial Court to the extent it added the petitioner herein as defendant No.4. The other part of the relief claimed in I.A.No.1046 of 2009, namely amendment of the plaint shall stand rejected, leaving it open to respondent No.1 to file independent application for amendment of the pleadings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 16.12.2010. kdl [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733