ORDER : The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29.09.2016 on I.A. No.X under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’, for short) in O.S.No.11/2013 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar allowing the application for impleading the applicant as defendant No.4. 2. The present plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.11/2013 for partition and separate possession against the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed written statement contending that Item No.5 of the suit schedule property is self acquired property of them. Hence, sought to dismissal of the suit which is pending for consideration. 3. It is contended that the applicant has entered into a sale agreement with defendant Nos. 2 and dated 22.08.2012 for sale consideration of Rs.31,50,000/. After executing sale agreement, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of applicant. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.108/2014 for specific performance against the defendants which came to be decreed. In the meantime, the proposed applicant has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with 151 CPC to implead him as defendant No.4 as he being a necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings. Said application was dismissed on 27.01.2015 on the ground that “the applicant having filed suit for specific performance of the contract in O.S.108/2014, he can work out his remedy against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in case he is able to succeed in the said suit after disposal of the said suit. To decide the rights of the parties to the present suit in the schedule properties, he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit . Hence, I.A.No. 5 is dismissed. Thereafter, applicant has filed one more application to implead him as defendant No.4 to the said suit which is resisted by the present plaintiffs. The trial court after considering the application and objections, passed the order allowing the said application and impleaded the applicant as proposed defendant No.4. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri. The trial court after considering the application and objections, passed the order allowing the said application and impleaded the applicant as proposed defendant No.4. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri. Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners has contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court allowing the present application second time is erroneous and it is against the principles of resjudicata. The trial court ought not to have allowed the said application. Hence, sought to allow the writ petition. 6. Sri. G.Papi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that as observed by the trial Court for earlier application filed by the applicant in O.S.No.108/2014 for specific performance of contract against defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule property came to be decreed on 19.08.2016 i.e., subject matter of the appeal in R.F.A.No.1729/2016 before this Court no interim order was passed by this Court, since the applicant became the absolute owner and obtained registered sale deed through Court order dated 11.01.2010 and same was registered on 13.10.2017 in Ex.No.134/2016. Hence, he is a necessary and a proper party to the suit, to protect his right, he filed suit for partition. Therefore, sought to dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, it is undisputed fact that the present applicant has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.108/2014 against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 which is came to be decreed. Subsequently, applicant has got sale deed through Court. In the application, he has specifically contended that there is a collusion between the vendors and plaintiffs. Therefore, he intends to come on record to safeguard his right in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule property. Though, defendants 2 and 3 filed an appeal before this Court, no interim order was granted as O.S.No.108/2014 has reached finality. Therefore, the applicant claiming right under registered sale deed to protect his right in respect of Item No.5 of the suit schedule property. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings and observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. The present petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed.