IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6027 OF 2009 Between: Thotipalli Minoddin and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Ambati Venugopal and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6027 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh which is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by the 1st respondent herein (sole defendant). After issues were settled and the plaintiffs evidence was closed and the suit was coming up for the evidence of the defendants, the plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed I.A.No.300 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead the 2nd respondent herein as defendant No.2 to the main suit. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 30.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition it was pleaded by the plaintiffs/revision petitioners that the 1st respondent herein had executed a sale agreement in favour of the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent (proposed defendant). However, subsequently the proposed defendant having received cash consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- from the revision petitioners, transferred the agreement of sale in their favour and therefore he is a proper and necessary party to the suit. As rightly held by the Court below since the proposed party has no subsisting interest over the subject matter of the suit, his presence is not necessary for deciding the issues involved in the suit effectually and completely. Hence, judicial discretion exercised by the Court below in dismissing the implead petition warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.01.2010 Ivd