JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.89 passed by Shri Hari Singh Poonia Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City Jaipur dis- missing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code). The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under: The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mohd. Yunus had entered into an agreement with defendant-respondent No. 2 Madho Prasad Sharma whereby the latter had agreed to sell his property in dispute to the former. The agreement was executed on 24.10.88 and part consideration was stated to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff served notice on the defendant to complete the transaction and to execute the sale-deed. The defendant replied to the notice stating that prior to 24.10.88 he had already entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute to Adi Gaur Brahaman Moorti Kalakar Sansthan (the petitioner) and as such he could not sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant on 5.1.89. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code stating that the defendant had already entered into an agreement with it for selling the property in dispute before the agreement dated 24.10.88 was entered into by him with the plaintiff and that it has the right to purchase the property in dispute and is a necessary party to the suit. The petitioner thus prayed that it be impleaded as a party to the suit. Before the application could be decided sale-deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the petitioner on 20.7.89. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has dismissed the petitioner's application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision petition through its President Shri Satya Narain Nahta. 2. The revision petition came-up for hearing on 2.4.90 when I had directed that notice be issued to the respondents to show cause why this revision petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Respondent No. 2 did not appear despite Service. Respondent No. 2 has put his appearance through Shri Ajeet Bhandari Advocate. 2. The revision petition came-up for hearing on 2.4.90 when I had directed that notice be issued to the respondents to show cause why this revision petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Respondent No. 2 did not appear despite Service. Respondent No. 2 has put his appearance through Shri Ajeet Bhandari Advocate. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. 3. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner as well as the plaintiff had entered into agreements with the defendant for purchase of the property in dispute in the suit pending before the learned trial Court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner having already purchased the property in dispute under a sale-deed its rights are likely to be effected in the suit. It is however contended by Shri Bhandari that the petitioner was a stranger to the contract entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff and as such it is not a necessary party to the suit and its application could not be allowed. He has placed reliance on decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Vs. Mohanlal & others (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 640/86) decided on 12.12.86. I have gone through the above said decision. The facts in Kellar Nath's case (supra) were that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the property in dispute. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been filed by one Kishan Lal stating that the defendant was only a co-sharer in the property and in which he was also co-sharer and as such was a necessary party and should be impleaded as such. His application was allowed by the learned trial Court but in the revision petition it was held that he has no right to be impleaded as a party. It cannot be disputed that a stranger to the contract who has no right in the property which is sought to be sold cannot claim any right to become a party to a suit filed by one party against the other party to the contract. It cannot be disputed that a stranger to the contract who has no right in the property which is sought to be sold cannot claim any right to become a party to a suit filed by one party against the other party to the contract. If a co-sharer sells the property representing to another person that he is the owner thereof he passes no title to the vendee except the title which belongs to him and as such even if a decree is passed in favour of the proposed vendee and against the proposed vendor the right of the stranger to the contract is not affected. In the present case the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in dispute in terms of an agreement stated to have been executed by the defendant prior to 24.10.88 when the agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff the decision of the suit is likely to effect the right of the petitioner. The decision in Kedar Nath's case (supra) is thus of no assistance to the respondent- plaintiff. As such I am of the view that the learned trial Court exercised its discretion with material irregularity in dismissing the application of the petitioner. 4. Consequently I accept this revision petition set-aside the impugned order and allow the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party. 5. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 11.9.90 for further proceedings in the suit. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court immediately.Revision accepted. *******