THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2054 of 2009 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.22 of 2008 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, against respondent Nos.2 and 3, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed I.A.No.196 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to add him as defendant No.3. He pleaded that item No.1 of the suit schedule was purchased by him from Daledargan Ahmed Saheb, who is none other than the brother- in-law of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3. Reliance was placed upon an agreement of sale, dated 24.09.1992, and it was asserted that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a separate counter- affidavit stating that the agreement of sale, dated 24.09.1992, relied upon by the petitioner, is a forged one. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 30.03.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner wanted to get himself impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. He laid claim against one of the items of the suit schedule property on the strength of an agreement of sale. The respondents opposed the application. The trial Court treated the petitioner as a stranger to the proceedings and dismissed the application. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that in a suit for specific performance between the parties to an agreement, a stranger cannot be permitted to intervene. The petitioner herein cannot be treated as a stranger. He too based his claim on the agreement of sale. The truth and validity of the agreement needs to be considered at the time of trial. As a matter of fact, it is in the interest of the plaintiff that the petitioner is to be impleaded. The reason is that in the event of a decree being passed in his favour, the hurdle that may be created by the petitioner in the execution proceedings would stand cleared. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.196 of 2009 shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.12.2009 kdl