ORDER : Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.479/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Anekal is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 17.02.2020 passed on I.A. filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit is one for cancellation of sale agreement dated 20.02.1989 and for perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 to 3, who are respondents No.1 to 3 herein. An application was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead 4th respondent herein as additional defendant No.4 to the suit on the ground that the proposed defendant is necessary and proper party to the suit, since it is stated that defendants No.1 to 3 have sold a portion of schedule property in favour of proposed defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2012. The trial Court, on considering the said application, under the impugned order rejected the application of the plaintiff to implead 4th respondent herein as additional defendant No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Admittedly, the suit is one for cancellation of sale agreement between the plaintiff and respondents No.1 to 3 who are defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit. I.A. filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is to implead 4th respondent herein as additional defendant No.4 to the suit on the ground that defendants have executed a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2012 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property. But the said sale is not the subject matter of the present suit. The instant suit is with regard to cancellation of sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and respondents No.1 to 3. No relief is claimed against the proposed defendant. Moreover, for the relief sought in the present suit, the proposed defendant would not be a proper and necessary party. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.