ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.642 of 2017 in O.S No.150 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vinukonda. 2. The revision petitioner is the third party in the suit. She filed I.A.No.642 of 2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC to implead her as 2nd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the defendant in the suit. The trial Court on consideration of the pleadings has held that as the suit is filed for specific performance of contract between the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner being the third party is no way concerned in the contractual obligation between the parties and that petitioner being the third party must show how his rights are adversely affected, has dismissed the petition. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the third party to the suit, and claims that she has got some interest in the property. Therefore, she is necessary party to the suit, and sought for adding her as defendant in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnershp Firm Beawer (Raj.) through Smt Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others 2007 (6) ALT 20 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para-9 reads as under: “9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others (2005) 6 SCC 733 ). He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. In the present case, the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 by which the property was purchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only Kapoor Chand, but also his sons. Thus prima facie it appears that the purchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no semblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.” 5. The purport of the above decision is that if a third party is having any semblance of title or interest in the property he can be added as a party even in a suit for specific performance of contract. 6. Learned counsel relied on another decision reported in Akula Seshamma vs. P.Eswaraiah and others 2001(2) ALT 477 , it was held in para-12 of the judgment, as under: “12. The Supreme Court also rules that in a suit for specific performance the question is whether the vendor had executed the document and whether conditions prescribed in the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 have been complied with for granting the relief of specific performance. Though Sri M.P.Chandramouli submits that this judgment is an authority for the proposition that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale a third party is not a necessary party, the submission cannot be accepted, for, the Supreme Court did not lay down any such rule. In fact, referring to the earlier judgments in Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum ( AIR 1958 SC 886 ) and Lala Durga Prasad vs. Lala Deep Chand ( AIR 1954 SC 75 ) as well as Sections 15 and 16 of Specific Relief Act, the Supreme Court categorically observed that based on the fact situation the relief has to be moulded by the Court. The Supreme Court also noticed that in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent purchaser is a necessary party. Therefore, it can be concluded that though a third party who is not at all concerned with the property in question cannot be claimed to be added as a plaintiff or defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC a person having interest in the suit schedule property is a proper and necessary party for effective and complete adjudication of all issues in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.” 7. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Pallapu Mohanarao (died) per LRs and others v. Thammisetty Subba Rao and others 2012 (1) Alt 30 , wherein, this Court, in para-12.4, held as under: “Para-12.4: If an application is made by a plaintiff for impleading someone as a proper party, subject to limitation, bona fides etc., the Court will normally implead him, if he is found to be a proper party. On the other hand, if a non-party makes an application seeking impleadment as a proper party and Court finds him to be a proper party, the Court may direct his addition as a defendant; but if the Court finds that his addition will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found to be a proper party, if it does not want to widen the scope of the specific performance suit; or the court may direct such applicant to be impleaded as a proper party, either unconditionally or subject to terms. For example, if ‘D’ claiming to be a co-owner of a suit property, enters into an agreement for sale of his share in favour of ‘P’ representing that he is the co-owner with half share, and ‘P’ files a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale in respect of the undivided half share, the Court may permit the other co-owner who contends that ‘D’ has only one-fourth share, to be impleaded as an additional defendant as a proper party, and may examine the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement in respect of half a share or only one-fourth share; alternatively the Court may refuse to implead the other co-owner and leave open the question in regard to the extent of share of the vendor-defendant to be decided in an independent proceeding by the other co-owner, or the plaintiff; alternatively the Court may implead him but subject to the term that the dispute, if any, between the impleaded co-owner and the original defendant in regard to the extent of the share will not be the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance, and that it will decide in the suit, only the issues relating to specific performance, that is whether the defendant executed the agreement/contract and whether such contract should be specifically enforced. In other words, the Court has the discretion to either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because he is a proper party.” 8. Mr Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the plaint schedule property and other properties belong to Ravulapalli Subbaiah. Ravulapalli Subbaiah has got a wife and a son by name Ravulapalli Gangamma and Ravulapali Narasaiah. Ravulapalli Gangamma predeceased him in the year 1993 and his only son inherited plaint schedule property and other property as a sole legal heir. Ravulapalli Narasaiah died intestate on 06.02.1999 leaving behind his wife 2nd respondent and his only son by name Ravulapalli Rambabu and his two daughters as his legal heirs. Ravulapalli Gangamma predeceased him in the year 1993 and his only son inherited plaint schedule property and other property as a sole legal heir. Ravulapalli Narasaiah died intestate on 06.02.1999 leaving behind his wife 2nd respondent and his only son by name Ravulapalli Rambabu and his two daughters as his legal heirs. On the demise of Ravulapalli Narasaiah the plaint schedule property and other properties devolved upon the petitioner herein who is third party to the suit and the Ravulapalli Rambabu and Gogula Radhika, who are 2nd and 3rd respondents in the suit. Since then they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and other properties having 1/6th share to the 1st respondent/defendant, 5/16th share to the plaintiff/petitioner herein, and the Ravulapalli Rambabu and Gogula Radhika/ defendants 2 and 3, each. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a physicallyhandicapped women and still unmarried living separately from the 2nd respondent, Ravulapalli Rambabu and Gogula Radhika/defendants 2 and 3, for the last 7 years living in item No.5 of schedule property eaking her livelihood by doing Tailoring work. The petitioner/3rd party has filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and other properties on 24.11.2017 against the 2nd respondent and others on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narasaraopet vide O.S.No.541 of 2017. After filing of the suit the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has filed the above suit for specific performance of contract in respect of item Nos. 2 and 4 of plaint schedule property in O.S.No.541 of 2017 which was sold by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. In fact item No.1 of plaint schedule property is situated in Vinukonda revenue village has not been partitioned so far, and that, the petitioner has got 5/16th share in the plaint schedule property and he has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and therefore he filed suit in respect of the said property for partition. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an interested and necessary party in the above suit and to protect her joint share in the plaint schedule property, the petitioner is sought to be added as 2nd respondent in the proceedings. 11. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an interested and necessary party in the above suit and to protect her joint share in the plaint schedule property, the petitioner is sought to be added as 2nd respondent in the proceedings. 11. On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and as no representation on behalf of the respondents though notices have been served to them and as it is submitted by affidavit that the petitioner/3rd party has got interest over the schedule property as she is claiming share in the plaint schedule property in the partition suit as well as suit for specific performance of contract the petitioner is necessary party in the suit. 12. In the light of the catena of decisions referred above, the petitioner though third party to the suit is claiming interest in the title over the schedule property to some extent she may be added as a party in the suit as defendant. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed adding the petitioner as party in the suit. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.