Telangana High Court
B.Subba Rao vs M.Narsing Yadav And 7 Others on 21 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRP.NO.1455 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
The present is the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in IA.No.656 of 2015 and plaintiff in OS.No.199 of 2015 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the impugned order in the above referred interlocutory application by which the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents/proposed defendants No.5 to 8 in the above referred suit.
2. As could be seen from the order impugned in the present revision, it shows that the present revision petitioner has filed OS.No.199 of 2015 against four defendants and sought for perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with his alleged possession on plaint A, B and C properties. When the said suit was pending before the trial Court, the respondents No.1 to 3 herein have filed IA.No.656 of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of Civil 2 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018 Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') with a prayer to add them as defendants No.5 to 8 in the main suit.
3. In support of their petition, the 1st respondent/petitioner No.1/proposed defendant No.5 filed his own affidavit. As per the said affidavit, it is pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff filed this suit against four defendants for a perpetual injunction but the said suit was filed by the parties to the suit in view of their collusion to grab the suit schedule property. The respondents have also claimed that land in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village was to an extent of Ac.274-33 gts. The Revenue Records shows that Sy.No.57 is a Government land and State Government through Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella filed a land grabbing case vide LGC.No.106 of 1989 against one Mohd.Bahabuddin Khan and others. The Special Court under Land Grabbing Act passed a judgment in the said case on 15-12-1994 directing the land grabbers, who have occupied the property to vacate the property. Therefore, the respondents in the said LGC filed WP.No.2644 of 1999 before the High Court at Hyderabad. The said Writ Petition was disposed by the High Court by judgment dated 13-11-1997 by granting one month time to 3 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018 the petitioners therein to vacate the land which was in their possession. Thereafter, the Government could successfully take over possession of the property.
4. The respondents further claimed that by suppressing the above legal proceedings, Mohd. Mohiuddin Khan and others obtained a collusive decree in C.S.No.7/1958 and also obtained a Final Decree on 30-12-2011. The present petitioner obtained mutation proceedings in respect of the property by suppressing the proceedings in the above referred LGC case. While narrating the subsequent events, the respondents/defendants have claimed that Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy suspended the mutation ordered by MRO. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed WP.No.26288/2015 before the High Court at Hyderabad. The said Writ Petition was disposed by the High Court with certain directions.
5. The respondents have also claimed that they have been in possession of different extents covered by the property shown in the schedule in the above referred OS.No.199 of 2015. But the present petitioner has no right, title, interest or possession over Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village. They want to obtain a decree by colluding with the 4 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018 defendants No.1 to 4, thereby, having claimed that they are proper and necessary parties to the suit, they prayed for their impleadment into the suit. Even though, the present petitioner/plaintiff opposed the petition, the trial Court having heard the parties, allowed the petition under the impugned order.
6. Being not happy with the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing the order on the ground that the trial Court ought to have observed that respondents No.1 to 4 are not claiming any right through respondents No.5 to 8. If the respondents, who wanted to come on record as defendants No.5 to 8 have got any grievance, they can file a separate proceeding. The petitioner has also claimed that when he is not claiming any relief against the respondents 1 to 5, they cannot be treated as proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both parties.
8. Now the point for consideration in the present revision is:
Whether the trial Court was wrong in allowing the request of respondents No.1 to 4 for their impleadment as defendants 5 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018 No.5 to 8 in the suit that was filed by the present petitioner against respondents No.5 to 8 on the ground that the suit was only for a relief of perpetual injunction and there was no prayer seeking any relief against the proposed defendants?
9. It may be true that the petitioner herein has filed the suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that he has got possession over the suit schedule plots and there was an attempt by the defendants shown in the suit, who are referred as respondents No.5 to 8 in the present revision petition. It may be true that the petitioner/plaintiff did not seek any relief against the respondents No.1 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being author of the plaint cannot be forced to add a party against whom he is not claiming any relief. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the suit that was filed by the petitioner against an unconcerned person without noticing the actual possessors of the property is ordered, definitely it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and rights of the parties, who were in possession of the property, would be prejudiced.
10. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 4, they have raised so many issues including a land grabbing case in 6 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018 respect of the vast extent of land in Sy.No.57. The petitioner/plaintiff did not dispute the averments made in the affidavit. Therefore, it was the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner/plaintiff herein or respondents No.5 to 8/defendants No.5 to 8 are nothing to do with the suit plots. On the other hand, they have specifically claimed that they have been in possession of the property.
11. In such a case, if the respondents, who claimed to have been in possession of the property were not added and ignoring the other averments made in the affidavit which goes to show the earlier proceedings including landing grabbing case, revenue proceedings and the claim of respondents No.1 to 4 that they are in possession of the property, the suit filed by the petitioner herein was decreed, definitely, it would cause prejudice to the contentions of the persons, who claimed to have been in possession of the property. Even if the respondents are ordered to be impleaded to the suit and even if they filed their respective pleadings still the petitioner/plaintiff will have a right to retaliate the said claim by filing rejoinder and by cross-examining the witnesses that may be produced by the respondents No.1 to 4.
7 SSRN, J CRP.No.1455 of 2018
12. As per the Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, if the Court believes that a litigation could not be completely adjudicated without the presence of a particular party and the failure to add a particular party in a suit or proceeding leads to multiplicity of the proceedings definitely such person can be added as a party to the proceeding.
13. Therefore, the trial Court having considered all these aspects rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 to 4. Therefore, the said order cannot be interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J 21st June, 2024.
PLV