THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4946 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.74 of 2000 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16.12.1996. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased by respondent No.8 in an auction conducted in E.P.No.338 of 2000 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal and that the same is not binding upon him. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte at the initial stage of the present suit. However, in the recent past, on an application filed by him, the order setting him ex parte was set aside. During the course of his evidence as D.W1, he stated that the suit schedule property is under lease to proposed defendant Nos.9 and 10 in the suit from respondent No.8 herein. It is in this context, that the petitioner filed I.A.No.231 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead proposed defendant Nos.9 and 10. The application was opposed by the respondents herein. Through its order, dated 30.09.2009, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.8. Though respondent Nos.1 to 7 were served with notice, they have not entered appearance. The suit filed by the petitioner for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale and ancillary reliefs is pending trial. During the course of trial, respondent No.1 stated that the subject matter of the suit is under lease in favour of proposed defendant Nos.9 and 10 by respondent No.8. Since the suit is for the relief of specific performance, it becomes necessary to implead every person who is in possession of the property. The reason is that in the event of the suit being decreed, the execution thereof would become difficult unless the persons, who are in possession thereof, are made parties to the suit. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal[1], which is to the effect that strangers to the contract cannot be made parties to a suit for specific performance, does not become relevant to this case. The reason is that the proposed defendants are lessees of a person who is very much party to the suit. Therefore, they cannot be termed as strangers. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders in the I.A. after issuing notice to the proposed defendants. Since the suit is of the year 2000, expeditious steps will be taken for disposal thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 20.12.2010. kdl [1] (2005) 6 SCC 733