THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2216 OF 2011 Dated:10.10.2011 Between: N.Yadagiri .. Petitioner And Dr.N.V.Rama Rao and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2216 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.420 of 2010 in A.S.No.144 of 2007. The suit in O.S.No.268 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents 2, 3 and 4 for specific performance of contract. The said suit was decreed. It is the case of the petitioner herein that there was an oral agreement of sale of the suit schedule property in his favour by respondents 2, 3 and 4. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.268 of 1999, the second respondent herein filed A.S.No.144 of 2007, which is pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Cases-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Warangal. At that stage, the first respondent herein, who is also claiming an agreement of sale in his favour by the original owner with regard to the same property, filed I.A.No.420 of 2010 for his impleadment in the first appeal. The learned first appellate Court allowed the said I.A. by impugned order, dated 28.04.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by filing the implead petition, the first respondent is seeking to widen the scope of the suit itself. It is further stated that the first respondent herein is neither necessary nor proper party to decide the issues involved in the matter and as such Court below erred in allowing the said application. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that as the original defendants were not properly pursuing the matter and as the same property was sold to the first respondent by entering into an agreement of sale on 01.07.1999, for enforcement of which, a separate suit is already filed, therefore, he is proper and necessary party for effective adjudication of the matter. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by filing the implead petition the first respondent is seeking to widen the scope of the suit, cannot be accepted, in view of the specific plea of the first respondent herein that the original defendants are not pursuing the matter properly, and to support his plea that there was an agreement of sale in his favour also, he wanted to come on record as respondent in the first appeal. Therefore, I am of the view that though he may not be treated as a necessary party, but still, he can be considered as a proper party as he is also an agreement holder, and a separate suit filed by him for specific performance of such agreement is pending consideration. For the aforesaid reasons and also for the reasons recorded by the Court below, I do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10.10.2011 KH