Re: I.A. No. 3157 of 2010 I.A. No. 3157 of 2010 filed by Krishna Buildcon, a partnership firm for impleading it in the present second appeal under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is submitted by Sri Bhaiya Vishwajit Kumar, advocate for the intervener that during the pendency of this appeal, proposed intervener entered into an agreement with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Parmeshwar Sahu and Prem Prakash Sahu for development of land in dispute. It is further submitted that he has already spent huge amount for development of the said land as per the agreement. It is then submitted that the proposed intervener have no knowledge about the pendency of this second appeal and when he came to know about the same, he filed this application for impleading him party in the instant case. 3. He submits that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1999)2 SCC 577 as well as (2007)10 SCC 82 proposed intervener may be impleaded in this appeal. It is submitted that since proposed intervener entered into an agreement with respondents for development of some of the suit property and he spent a huge amount over the said portion of the suit property thus, he is entitled to be impleaded in this Second Appeal as per the provision contained under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. 4. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel can not be accepted. In the judgment reported in (1999) 2 SCC 577 , the proposed intervener has purchased suit property pendente lite. 5. In the instant case as noticed above there is an agreement for development of some of the suit property. 6. The next case relied by the learned counsel for proposed intervener is a case relating to specific performance of contract in which the intervener are heirs of proposed purchaser. Their Lordship of Supreme Court at para 14 had stated that in a suit for specific performance of contract if the intervener shows semblance of title and interest, he can file an application for impleading himself in the case. This second appeal arose from a partition suit. Their Lordship of Supreme Court at para 14 had stated that in a suit for specific performance of contract if the intervener shows semblance of title and interest, he can file an application for impleading himself in the case. This second appeal arose from a partition suit. In this case, I have already noticed that there is no agreement of sale of property followed by delivery of possession rather in the instant case only an agreement for development of property was entered in between the proposed intervener and respondents . Thus, in my view, the intervener have no substantial interest in the said property. It has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in 2005(11) SCC 403 Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another that a transferee pendente lite can be added as proper party, if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not peripheral. In my view, by development agreement, proposed intervener has got only peripheral interest, because through aforesaid agreement no right, title and interest accrued in favour of proposed intervener. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this I.A. Accordingly , the same is dismissed.