- (1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.56 of 2002, against the respondents 1 to 3, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement, in respect of the suit schedule property. In short, the case of the petitioner is that, there exists an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents to the effect that, on payment of consideration by one M/s Srinidhi Homes Private Limited, the 4th respondent herein, the respondents 1 to 3 shall execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents 1 to 3 filed their written-statement, denying the very existence of agreement. They further pleaded that they did not receive any amount from the 4th respondent. It was in this context that the petitioner filed I.A.No.469 of 2004, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., to add the 4th respondent as defendant No.4.
(2.) The application was resisted by respondents 1 to 3, and respondent No.4 remained ex parte. Through his order dated 22-07-2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not feel the necessity of impleading the 4th respondent as defendant No.4, in the initial stage, because he proceeded on the footing that the latter paid the consideration to the respondents 1 to 3, and he had to file the instant application, once it was pleaded by respondents 1 to 3 that the said consideration was not paid. He contends that there is sufficient background in the pleadings for impleading the 4th respondent, as one of the defendants, and the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.
(3.) Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner did not claim any relief against the proposed 4th respondent herein, and as such, the application is misconceived. He further contends that the only information as to whether the 4th respondent had paid any consideration to respondents 1 to 3, can be elicited by examining the former, as a witness, and that no interference is warrnated, with the order under revision.;