ORDER S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I. A. No. 871/95 in O. S. No. 39/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. First respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, Sumithra Amma, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed O. S. No. 39/88. The suit was filed for a decree of injunction restraining respondents 2 to 17 from trespassing over plaint 'B' schedule property and interfering with the possession and also in the alternative for recovery of possession of plaint schedule. 2. According to the petitioner, the plaintiff/first respondent had executed a power of attorney in his favour and he was conducting the case on behalf of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff executed an agreement for sale with regard to the properties included in the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs and the petitioner had already satisfied Rs. 16 lakhs towards sale consideration. The plaintiff and the petitioner fell apart and the plaintiff at the instigation of her brothers joined hands with the defendants and tried to compromise the suit to the disadvantage of the ultimate interest of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the compromise. He filed O. S. No. 225/95 before the Sub Court, Payyannur for specific performance of the agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the petitioner. In that suit, the petitioner obtained an order of injunction restraining the plaintiff from disposing the properties or withdrawing or abandoning the suits pending with respect to the properties. When the petitioner realised that the plaintiff will not conduct the suit properly, he filed I. A. No. 871 of 1995 for getting himself impleaded as supplemental second plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff did not file any objection. The third defendant in the suit filed objection. The court below dismissed the I. A. for impleading. It is against that the present revision is filed. 3. Originally, when the civil revision petition came up for admission. Balasubramanyan, J. dismissed it on the ground that the suit was withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for rehearing stating that as a matter of fact, the suit was not withdrawn. But the suit was dismissed for default. The petition for rehearing was allowed. The Civil Revision Petition was heard again. 4. Balasubramanyan, J. dismissed it on the ground that the suit was withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for rehearing stating that as a matter of fact, the suit was not withdrawn. But the suit was dismissed for default. The petition for rehearing was allowed. The Civil Revision Petition was heard again. 4. Learned senior counsel Shri P. N. K. Achan submitted that the order of the court below is wrong. The court below has gone on the assumption that since the petitioner has obtained an agreement for sale, he has no interest. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the agreement, the petitioner was put in possession of certain properties and that he had already paid Rs. 16 lakhs to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that originally the plaintiff was not interested in prosecuting the suit and that was justified by the subsequent dismissal of the suit for default. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri. Renjith Thampan submitted that the plaintiff is the master of the litigation and if the plaintiff feels that the suit need not be proceeded with, she cannot be compelled to continue the suit. Further, he submitted that in this case only an agreement for sale was executed. That doesn't create interest in the property. Hence O.22 R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted. In any event, he submitted that since the suit itself has been dismissed, it is not necessary to consider the present revision on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me a copy of the agreement executed on 31-1-1990 by the plaintiff. It shows that the properties which are included in the plaint are to be sold to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs and an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs has already been adjusted. It further states that possession of the properties has been given to the petitioner. The relevant sentence is as follows: xxx xxx xxx Thus, from the document it can be seen that possession has been given to the petitioner. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the court below was correct in rejecting his application for impleading. A Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Mrs. Saradambal Ammal v. E. R. Kandasamy Goundar and others, AIR (36) 1949 Mad. 23 - was cited. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the court below was correct in rejecting his application for impleading. A Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Mrs. Saradambal Ammal v. E. R. Kandasamy Goundar and others, AIR (36) 1949 Mad. 23 - was cited. There a suit for specific performance was filed by two plaintiffs. An agreement was entered into by the first plaintiff with the owner of the property. Subsequently, he transferred his interest in the mortgage to the second plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears that the second plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who filed petition for impleading it was contended that the impleading petitioner did not have any interest in the property and hence that application should not be allowed. The Division Bench observed thus: "If there is an assignment of the right by the original plaintiff during the pendency of a suit for specific performance the person in whom such right has passed can continue the suit under R.10 of O.22. The words "any interest" in this rule include any transferable "right to sue" spoken of in the earlier rules of the order which provide for its devolution in case of death. The "assignment, creation or devolution of any interest" referred to in the rule does not mean an assignment, creation or devolution of an interest in tangible property only". 7. A similar question came up for consideration in V. Narasimha Raju v. K. Yellamanda, AIR 1960 A.P. 32 . With regard to an agreement for sale, Umamaheswaram, J. observed as follows: "An agreement of sale by itself does not create an interest in immovable property but where the party has been put in possession of the suit property under the agreement of safe it must be held that there was sufficient creation of interest in his favour so as to attract the terms of O.22 R.10". His Lordship relied on the Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Mrs. Saradambal Ammal v. E. R. Kandasamy Gounder and others, AIR 1949 Mad. 23. 8. Thus, going by the above decisions, what is necessary to find out is whether the impleading petitioner has obtained the right to sue. In this case, by the agreement of sale, the petitioner obtained possession also. It cannot be said that the petitioner did not have any right for the purpose of getting himself impleaded. 23. 8. Thus, going by the above decisions, what is necessary to find out is whether the impleading petitioner has obtained the right to sue. In this case, by the agreement of sale, the petitioner obtained possession also. It cannot be said that the petitioner did not have any right for the purpose of getting himself impleaded. After looking into the agreement and subsequent filing of the suit, viz., O. S. No. 225/95, I am of the view that it is a case where the petitioner should have been impleaded as supplemental plaintiff. Subsequently, it is seen that the suit itself was dismissed on the ground of default. 9. In the above view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and allow I. A. No. 871/95. The petitioner will be impleaded as additional second plaintiff in the suit. The suit would not have been dismissed, if the impleading petition had been allowed. Hence, I also set aside the dismissal of the suit on 6-11-1995 on the ground that the plaintiff was absent and the suit is restored back to file. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.