THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4878 OF 2009 Date: 11.03.2010 Between: B.Lakshmi Narayana and others ..... PETITIONERS AND N.Satyanarayana Murthy and others .....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. 4878 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2009 in I.A.No.168 of 2009 in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The suit is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17.06.2006 allegedly executed by the defendant/4th respondent herein and for a direction to him to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and deliver possession of the schedule property to them. A written statement was filed by the sole defendant contesting the suit. At that stage, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.168 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to implead them as defendants 2 to 5 to the suit, claiming that they had 4/5th joint share in the plaint schedule properties. It is also alleged that their father i.e., the defendant was acting adverse to their interest and the suit agreement of sale was created in collusion with the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that they filed O.S.No.455 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri against their father for partition and separate possession of their 4/5th share. Thus, it is contended that they being proper and necessary parties to the suit, may be implead as defendants 2 to 5. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the Court below, after hearing both the parties by order dated 17.09.2009, dismissed I.A.No.168 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. As the suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the sole defendant, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the revision petitioners are entitled to any share in the suit properties. As rightly observed by the Court below, the lis is only between the vendor and the purchaser and therefore, the presence of the third parties is not necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit. The Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the application and the said judicial discretion exercised by the Court below warrants no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 11.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd