IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3925 of 2010 Between: Mutyala Venkateswar Rao .. Petitioner AND Ambati Masthan Rao & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3925 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 26.11.2009, in I.A.No.1885 of 2008 in O.S.No.67 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/third party, under Order I Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), for permitting him to come on record as 3rd defendant and to contest the suit by filing his written statement, was dismissed. 2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.67 of 2008 against the second respondent herein/defendant in the trial Court for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12.06.2005. While the said suit is pending, the present application is filed stating that the proposed party herein wants to come on record to safeguard the interest on the suit schedule property. Andey Nageswara Rao, who filed I.A.No.1884 of 2008 in O.S.No.67 of 2008 to implead him as the proposed party/second defendant, is the plaintiff in O.S.No.56 of 2001. He obtained a decree against the second respondent herein. While the suit was pending, the second respondent herein executed an undertaking before the Court in the said suit not to alienate the property. The decree in O.S.No.56 of 2001, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, has become final as the appeal filed against the judgment and decree was dismissed and the second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, Andey Nageswara Rao brought the petition schedule property to sale in Execution Proceedings No.96 of 2006. The sale was conducted by the Court and the petitioner herein/third party/auction purchaser became the highest bidder. At that point of time, to defeat the rights of the petitioner/proposed second defendant, it is alleged that the first respondent herein brought into existence an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by him in favour of first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in order to defeat the rights of the proposed party and also the rights of the petitioner/auction purchaser, the present suit is filed and, therefore, to safeguard the interest, the proposed party herein may be permitted to come on record. 4. There cannot be any dispute that under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC, a person who is having semblance of right over the property can come on record. But, in view of the decision reported in KASTURI VS. IYYAMPERUMAL AND OTHERS[1], in a suit for specific performance, only the parties to the agreement are the necessary parties. Since the petitioner is not a party to the agreement of sale, he cannot be permitted to come on record. The first respondent herein cannot have any right or title over the property because he is claiming right only through agreement of sale. That does not confer any title to the property. In view of the fact that the second respondent said to have executed an agreement of sale by-passing the undertaking given by him, even if the present petitioner is not permitted to come on record, the present petitioner’s rights if any, would not have been in any manner affected. 5. The rights of the petitioner can be adjudicated in the claim petition filed by the petitioner in the Execution Proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 10th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3925 of 2010 Date: 10th March, 2011 KL [1] (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733