HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 of 2022
Kathi David Raju, S/o Late Yedukondalu, R/o Q.No.E-11, E1
Block, Pinakini Colony, SDSTPS, Nelaturu Village, Muthukur
Mandla, SPSR Nellore District.
... Petitioner
Versus
Ramavath Krishna Naik, S/o gopa Naik, aged about 54 years,
State President, Lamadi Hakkula Porata Samithi,
Regd.No.9847/2000 (working as BTC, presently residing at
ADEN, South Central Railway, West Guntur, Guntur District -
522 002) and another
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : SriG.V.S. Kishore Kumar
Counsel for respondents : ---
ORDER:
Plaintiff, in the suit filed, the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 30.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.110 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur.
2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.110 of 2018 to declare that plaintiff's name is Kathi David Raju, S/o late Yedukondalu, but not Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Venkata Kotaiah and that Kathi David Raju and Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu are different persons as per the educational certificates.
2
3. Defendants filed written statement and are contesting the suit.
4. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.107 of 2020 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add respondent Nos.3 to 13 as defendant Nos.3 to 13 in the main suit and in subsequent petitions.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that respondent No.4, District Collector passed order vide R.C.No.14/2016/C4, dated 18.02.2020; that respondent No.5, Joint Collector and Chairman DLSC, Guntur District gave findings on caste enquiry report; that respondent Nos.6 and 7, subordinates of respondent Nos.4 and 5, participated in the enquiry; that respondent Nos.6 and 7 colluded with respondent No.1 and arranged respondent No.3, Kathi John/Chinna John and lured him to give false statement against the petitioner; that respondent Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other and filed a fake crime in Bapatla Police Station against the petitioner stating that petitioner changed his name and fraudulently obtained fake caste certificate; that respondent No.8 is employer of the petitioner; that respondent Nos.9 to 13 are sub-ordinates of respondent No.8; that when the suit is pending, respondent No.8 issued charge sheet, dated 09.03.2020 to the petitioner 3 on the basis of notification issued by respondent No.4; that one of the charges in the charge sheet issued by respondent No.8 is that the petitioner obtained ST Yanadi caste certificate fraudulently basing on the transfer certificate belonging to another person by name Kathi John David @ David Raju, S/o Yedukondalu, the subject matter in the suit; that W.P.No.6576 of 2020 was filed before the High Court against respondent No.4 and High Court granted stay in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and the same is being extended from time to time; that petitioner submitted explanation to respondent No.8 on 18.03.2020 through proper channel; that respondent Nos.8 to 13 did not stop further proceedings and started departmental enquiry; that if the matter is decided against the petitioner, it may contradict and cause loss to the petitioner; that respondent Nos.3 to 13 are necessary parties to the suit proceedings and hence filed petition to implead respondent Nos.3 to 13 as party defendants to the suit.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter it was contended inter alia that though plaintiff belongs to Telaga (O.C.) caste, he assumed the name of S.T. by name Kathi David Raju, obtained study certificate by impersonating said Kathi David Raju and got job by cheating the Government; that under Section 17 of the 4 Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and the proposed parties are not necessary parties and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Respondent No.6 filed separate counter and contended interalia about petitioner's securing job by obtaining false certificate, etc.
8. By order, dated 30.08.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
9. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. He would also contend that the name of the petitioner is Katti David Raju, but not Imadabathini Veeranjaneyulu and pending the suit, proposed parties are enquiring into the caste of the petitioner. Hence, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. Learned counsel would also submit that civil court got jurisdiction to look into the caste certificate 5 and also the order of caste cancellation certificate passed by respondent No.4.
11. The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit?
12. Order I Rule 10 of CPC enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code. It also empowers the Court to substitute a party in the suit, a wrong person with a right person. If the Court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. When the Court finds that in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the 6 controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled, the Court would do justice by impleading such persons.
13. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.
14. A necessary party is a person who ought to have been arrayed/joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not arrayed, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.
15. However, when an application is filed seeking impleadment, the Court has to see whether the proposed parties are proper and necessary to adjudicate the lis in the suit basing on the facts of the each case.
7
16. In the case on hand, the relief sought for in the main suit is to declare that the name of the petitioner is Kathi David Raju, S/o Yedukondalu.
17. A careful perusal of the plaint shows that no allegations were made against the proposed parties. Even in the implead petition, no relief is sought against the proposed parties, except seeking impleadment. All the allegations are against defendant Nos.1 and 2. As can be seen from the record, respondent No.3 is the person, who has lodged complaint basing on which criminal case was registered. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are government and revenue officials and they are no way concerned with the present suit. Respondent Nos.8 to 13 are department personnel of the petitioner, who are conducting departmental enquiry. They are also nothing to do with the relief sought for in the suit.
18. As discussed supra, in the absence of any assertions against the proposed parties regarding their role and the relief sought against them, they cannot be impleaded as party defendants to the suit as proper and necessary parties. The trial Court after considering all these aspects, dismissed the petition.
8
19. In Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal corporation of Delhi and Ors.1, while dealing with scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India had been discussed in the case of The Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it was observed as follows:
The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.
20. In view of expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, since the trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested with it 1 (2010) 9 SCC 385 9 judiciously, interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 08.12.2022 ikn 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 of 2022 Date: 08.12.2022 ikn