Judgment : 1. The petitioner’s application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to implead himself in P and SC No.10 of 2007 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore was rejected by the Court below. Hence the present petition. 2. Sri G.B. Nandeesh Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order and hence interference is called for. He further contends that since the applicant is an agreement holder, his right and interest require to be agitated. Hence, he submits that he is a necessary party to the proceeding. 3. On hearing Counsels, I am of the considered view that the petition requires to be allowed for the following reasons. 4. A question as to whether the petitioner is an absolute owner of the suit schedule property cannot be determined at the interlocutory state when the specific case of the petitioner that he has a right over the schedule property. The same would have to be agitated and he cannot be declined to be a party in the suit. The affidavit in support of the application discloses that there is a sembalance of a right of the petitioner that requires to be considered. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 24-1-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in P and SC No.10 of 2007 is set aside. I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner herein is allowed. 6. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.