Telangana High Court
M/S Sneha Farms Private Limited vs Mr. Aduru Rajendra Prasad on 8 November, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2948 of 2024
ORDER:
The present is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking supervisory Writ jurisdiction of this Court while assailing the order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No.546 of 2023 in O.S.No.259 of 2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. K.Jaya Bharath Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. Mareddy Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff and Mr. M.Major Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant No.6.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had allowed the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC whereby the proposed defendant No.6 was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No.6 in the Original Suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff i.e. O.S.No.2259 of 2019.
4. The Original Suit is a Suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner / plaintiff over the Suit schedule property. The claim of the petitioner / plaintiff is on the basis of a registered sale deed that was Page 2 of 8 executed in the year 2019 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.13 and land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.13/E total admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Pending the Suit, the respondent No.6 who is the proposed defendant No.6, has moved I.A.No.546 of 2023 seeking his impleadment as a necessary party in the Suit. The contention of the proposed defendant No.6 was on the ground of the interference of the petitioner / plaintiff in the property which is owned by him so far as land situated in Plot No.51, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, or 418 Square meters in Survey Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the proposed defendant No.6, he had purchased the property from his vendor by way of an Agreement of Sale- cum-GPA executed on 21.11.2019 vide registration No.13131 of 2019 with a further rectification deed which was also registered vide document bearing No.13515 of 2019 dated 04.12.2019 and subsequently the registered sale deed got executed on 15.07.2021.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing on either side, the Trial Court allowed the aforesaid I.A.No.546 of 2023 by permitting the Page 3 of 8 proposed defendant to be added as defendant No.6 in the Original Suit, which is under challenge in the present Revision Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff strongly contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the proposed defendant No.6 if at all had any grievance; he ought to have filed a separate Suit against the petitioner / plaintiff. That he cannot be joined as a necessary party in the Suit for perpetual injunction that the petitioner / plaintiff has filed against the original respondents in the Suit.
8. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that in the capacity of a dominus litis it was the petitioner / plaintiff's prerogative to decide who should be the defendants and against whom the relief has to be sought. It was categorically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that the property which is claimed by defendant No.6 to be that which is reflected in Survey Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are not connected to the Suit schedule property in the present case and therefore the petitioner / plaintiff's Suit is concerned he is confining it so far as the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.13 and land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.13/E total admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village, Abdullapurmet Page 4 of 8 Revenue Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District and not in any other Survey.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff relied upon the following judgments of various High Courts on petitions filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and contended that proposed defendant No.6, as such, was not a necessary party and impleadment of the said defendant is therefore bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside.
1. B. Adeppa Naidu vs. Sri Swamy Hathiramjee and 3 Others 1
2. Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others 2
3. Kamakula Okkaliyar (Kappu) Mahajana Sangam, through its President vs. Palaniammal 3
4. M. Thangarasu vs. M. Punithavathi 4
5. V.O. Duraisamy Mudaliar (Deceased) vs. Parijathammal (Died) 5
6. Sri B. Chandrashekar vs. Sri M. Premanand Kamath 6
7. Sm.Laxmi Suresh vs. Sri Aduikesava Perumal Peyalwar 7 1 Order dated 4171 of 2016 in C.R.P.No.4171 of 2016 of High Court for the State of Telangana 2 (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352 3 Order dated 22.01.2020 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1037 of 2019 of Madras High Court 4 Order dated 17.04.2024 in C.R.P. Nos.3081 and 3721 of 2022 of Madras High Court 5 Order dated 04.01.2016 in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.1245 & 1246 of 2012 of Madras High Court 6 Order dated 14.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.7283 of 2024 of High Court of Karnakata 7 Order dated 21.04.2010 in C.R.P.(PD) No.703 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 of Madras High Court Page 5 of 8
10. There is a categorical contention put forth by learned counsel for respondent / defendant No.6 that he is in exclusive possession and ownership of the property in Survey Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is his further contention that part of the Suit schedule property is his property where he has ownership right and neither the petitioner / plaintiff nor the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have got any claim or interest over the said property and if at all the Suit is decided without he being made a necessary party, his interest shall be adversely affected. It was in this context that the Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff at this juncture submits that from the pleadings of proposed defendant No.6 it reflects that he appears to be a subsequent purchaser from one of the defendants in the Suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff and therefore he cannot be permitted now to step into the shoes of the defendants and contest the case as has been decided in the judgments relied upon by him.
12. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, undoubtedly the petitioner / plaintiff is claiming the relief in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.13 and land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.13/E total admeasuring Page 6 of 8 Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District, so also the proposed defendant No.6 in the Original Suit is also claiming title over the land bearing Plot No.51, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, or 418 Square meters in Survey Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It appears that the Suit schedule property and the property which is claimed by proposed defendant No.6 are interlinked to some extent.
13. In the given circumstances if the defendant No.6 is permitted to be added as a necessary party to the Suit, the question would be whether any prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioner / plaintiff or not?
14. The petitioner / plaintiff is claiming his right, title and injunction in respect of the property that situates at Survey No.13 and Survey No.13/E. The defendant No.6's claim is right over the property that situates in Survey Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E. If the two properties are entirely different, then this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice as such would be caused to the interest of the petitioner / plaintiff as also to the interest of the proposed defendant No.6 while deciding the Suit on merits. On the contrary, if the property happens to be the same or is adjoining or connected or Page 7 of 8 overlapping, if the proposed defendant No.6 is not made a party and the Suit is permitted to be decided and in the process if any relief is obtained by the petitioner / plaintiff which has an adverse impact on the right and title over defendant No.6; the same may give rise to multiplicity of further litigations and further complications as well. In order to avoid such a situation, if the proposed defendant No.6 is permitted to be added as has been ordered by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any prejudice detrimental to the interest of the petitioner / plaintiff being caused.
15. So far as the judgments that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff are concerned, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the proposition of law laid down. But a careful reading of the factual backdrop in which the Suits were filed even if it were for perpetual injunction, it would clearly reflect that the proposed defendants were not directly associated with the Suit or the Suit schedule property unlike in the present case. Therefore, those judgments are distinguishable on facts itself.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner / plaintiff calling for an interference to the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No.546 of 2023 in O.S.No.259 of 2019 passed by the Trial Court. The present Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Page 8 of 8
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 08.11.2024 GSD