THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1067 OF 2011 Dated:08.04.2011 Between: Gavani Giridhar Murari .. Petitioner And V.Madanamohan and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1067 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.90 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Tirupati, for specific performance of contract of sale. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.505 of 2010 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to get impleaded as party defendant. By impugned order dated 11.02.2011, the said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale a third party, claiming a right in respect of part of the suit schedule land, cannot be impleded even if it is a case of prior purchase of the said land. He would also urge that the Court below exercised jurisdiction vested in it improperly. The case of the first respondent is that he purchased an extent of Acs.2.21 cents from C.Sarvaraya Prasad, Kaliveti Peddabba, M.Subramanyam, Modem Chengaiah, P.Venkataramaiah and M.Mittu under registered documents and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase in 1993. He also alleged that the plaintiff colluded with the legal heirs of Kaliveti Peddabba, Chengaiah and others and created the agreement of sale and got filed a suit. His further plea was that as the owners have already alienated the property all the rights stood established and therefore he is proper and necessary party. The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations and reiterating his plaint case. As per the documents produced, the lower Court found that an extent of Ac.0.50 cents out of Acs.109.60 cents in Survey No.13 was sold to C.Sarvaraya Prasad and that under different sale deeds dated 01.02.1993 the petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.3.21 cents in Survey No.13. When the first respondent is claiming title under registered documents, it is certainly a situation where all the issues that would arise cannot be factually determined in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court as justified in impleading the first respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 08.04.2011 KH