THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4191 OF 2009 Dated 8th October, 2009 Between: Lingam Ashok …Petitioner And Bairi Laksminarayana and others …Respondents The Court made the following O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.2928 of 2006 in O.S.No.420 of 2006. Respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and declaration or, in the alternative, for partition of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3 in the suit. During the subsistence of the interim injunction order, he sold the suit schedule property to third parties. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed the present application seeking impleadment of the purchasers as defendants 4 to 8. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the said application and ordered for impleadment of the purchasers of the suit schedule property. Hence, this revision is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the petitioner was not a party to the agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into by respondent No.1 with respondents 2 and 3, the proposed defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. In this case, it is the specific plea of respondent No.1 that during the subsistence of the injunction order, the suit schedule property was sold by the petitioner to the proposed defendants. For effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, it becomes necessary that everyone, who has acquired title or interest over the property is made a party to the proceedings. Hence, this Court is also of the opinion that the proposed defendants are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Further in Indu Bai and another v. Rajendra Kumar Bhandrari and another[1], a learned Single Judge of this Court held- “It is true that an individual cannot be subjected to unnecessary litigation and he cannot be made to answer a person with whom he does not have any privity of contract or other relation. This principle, however, needs a different approach, when it comes to the suits for specific performance. Though the ultimate obligation, in the event of a suit decree for specific performance being passed, would rest upon the vendor under the agreement, in the context of recovery of possession or neutralizing the subsequent developments, it becomes essential to add everyone, who had a right or interest, vis-à-vis the property, either as on the date of the agreement of sale, or subsequent thereto.” Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 8th October, 2009 vrn [1] 2009 (5) ALD 402