Telangana High Court
Smt. Bharatamma vs M. Durgamma And 5 Others on 28 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.977 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, whereunder, the said petition was allowed.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent No.2 in I.A.No.2155 of 2019. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are petitioners in the said I.A., and the respondent No.6 is respondent No.1 in the said I.A.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed A.S.No.269 of 2016 and in the said A.S., the petitioners/third parties filed I.A.No.2155 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') SKS,J C.R.P.No.977 of 2022 2 praying to implead them as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the main case. Earlier, the respondent No.1 filed suit against respondent No.2 vide O.S.No.608 of 2015 seeking declaration and recovery of possession and the same was dismissed with an observation that the third parties were not added as parties to the suit. As such, when the third parties came to know about the same, they filed the I.A., seeking to implead them as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the main case.
5. In the said application, a counter was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 denying the averments made by petitioners and contending that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties to the appeal and that the petition was filed by them without disclosing the relationship with the respondent No.1 and only with an intention to prolong the appeal. It was admitted that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.608 of 2015 seeking declaration of title and that the trial Court after full fledged trial had dismissed the suit holding that respondent No.1 is not exclusive owner of the suit schedule property and has failed to implead the third parties. It was alleged that petitioners relinquished their rights over the suit schedule property and are falsely claiming SKS,J C.R.P.No.977 of 2022 3 their ownership over the subject property, as such, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. After hearing the submissions made by either side, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016 vide order dated 11.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is preferred by respondent No.2 in the said I.A.
7. Heard Sri S.Prabhakar, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for respondents.
8. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.A.No.2155 of 2019 as the proposed respondents did not file any implead petition during the course of the suit and thereafter, during the course of appeal, they filed implead petition with an intention to delay the proceedings. He contended that the trial Court erred in allowing the I.A., and relied on the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shashi Pal Vs. Desh Raj and Others 1 whereunder, it was held that it is not in dispute 1 (2019) SCC OnLine HP 1717 SKS,J C.R.P.No.977 of 2022 4 that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment of party in proceedings can be filed and allowed at any stage during the pendency of proceedings. The same can also be done during the pendency of appellate proceedings, however, what has to be seen is that in case the suit of a party stands dismissed by learned trial court, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for mis joinder of necessary parties, then can said lacunae in the suit be permitted to be filled up in appeal by way of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC or not, without adjudication on merit in the main appeal? As such, prayed the Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the appeal filed by respondent No.6 is in continuation with the suit filed by him vide O.S.No.608 of 2015. Further, the petition filed by respondent NOs.1 to 5 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is also maintainable at the appeal stage and as the respondent Nos.1 to 5 themselves filed a petition and stated that they are necessary parties to SKS,J C.R.P.No.977 of 2022 5 the suit, there is no illegality in the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition as the same lacks merits.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the appeal filed by respondent No.6 is in continuation with the suit and the perusal of averments would reveal that respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are necessary parties but they were not impleaded in the suit as a result of which the same was dismissed. It is noted that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are none other than the mother, sisters and brother of revision petitioner. That apart, the judgment rendered in the case of Shashi Pal (supra) with regard to filling up the lacunas does not come to the aid of revision petitioner as the respondent Nos.1 to 5 themselves filed a petition in the appeal stating that they are necessary parties.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016. There are no SKS,J C.R.P.No.977 of 2022 6 merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: .03.2024 PT