Kunchala Krishna Kishore, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1680 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                          I.A.No.1 OF 2021
                                  IN
                  WRIT PETITION NO.20512 OF 2017

ORDER:

This interlocutory application is filed under Order I,

Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to implead the petitioners

herein as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the writ petition, on the

ground that, grandfather of the petitioner herein - Kunchala

Venkateswarlu purchased land of an extent of Ac.1-53 ¼ cents in

Sy.Nos.142 and 143 vide Document No.780/1960. The government

acquired land of an extent of Ac.0-71 cents from the grandfather of

the petitioner and paid compensation and the remaining extent of

Ac.0-82 ¼ cents was in his possession.

Grandfather of the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0-46 ½

cents out of Ac.0-82 ¼ cents to Respondent No.7/Chintakrindi

Suryanarayana under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document

No.1292/1984 dated 16.04.1984.

Further, grandfather of the petitioner sold an extent of Ac.0-

41 cents to one Konka Venkataratnam @ Yesuratnam under

Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3171/1984 dated

13.07.1984.

Respondent No.7 sold away his share of an extent of Ac.0-32

cents to Petitioner No.1 herein/proposed respondent vide

Document bearing No.3970/2017 dated 08.06.2017. Petitioner

No.1, his son and his daughter are having other land adjacent to

the subject land and executed Development Agreement-cum-

MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.8581/2017 with

Petitioner No.2/proposed respondent/M/s. Prime Ventures India

LLP.

It is submitted that, grandfather of the petitioner alienated

all the properties to Respondent No.7 and others. Since 1984,

Respondent No.7 and Konka Yesuratnam and subsequently

Petitioner No.1/proposed respondent are in possession and

enjoyment over the subject property and the writ petitioner has no

right over the property, as his grandfather sold the same in the

year 1984. The grandfather of the writ petitioner Kunchala

Venkateswarlu died on 30.06.1988.

It is contended that the writ petitioner brought into existence

relinquishment deed between his family members which was

registered as Document No.1480/2012, wherein it was mentioned

that the grandfather of the writ petitioner was the owner and

possessor of the land having purchased the same under Document

No.780/1960. During his life time, no alienation had taken place

and he died without making any arrangements. After the demise

of the petitioner‟s grandfather, mother and sisters of the writ

petitioner executed a relinquishment deed, relinquishing their

rights over the subject property in an extent of Ac.0-32 cents to the

writ petitioner, as such, the relinquishment deed does not create

any right over any property in favour of the writ petitioner, as the

petitioner‟s grandfather had no property after 1984.

It is contended that, basing on the said relinquishment deed,

the writ petitioner obtained pattadar passbooks in his favour by

misleading the Tahsildar. Immediately, Respondent No.7 preferred MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking correction

of the entries in the revenue records and for cancellation of

pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the writ

petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and

directed the Tahsildar to take necessary steps to correct the entries

and to mutate the name of the title holders in accordance with law.

Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, the writ petitioner preferred Revision Case

Rc.No.187/2017-D5 before the Joint Collector, Guntur and the

Joint Collector, Guntur dismissed the Revision Case

Rc.No.187/2017-D5 on 14.05.2017, confirming the orders passed

by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The present interlocutory

application is filed by the petitioners herein/proposed respondents,

as they are proper and necessary parties and sought to implead

them as Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in the writ petition and requested

to issue a direction as stated above.

The writ petitioner/Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit,

denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the writ

petitioner‟s grandfather Sri Kunchala Venkateswarlu sold

Ac.0-46½ cents of land in Sy.No.143 to Ch. Suryanarayana (6th

respondent in the writ petition) and his brother under a registered

sale deed dated 16.04.1994 vide Document No.1292/1984. The

same was divided between the parties under Registered Partition

Deed dated 10-02-2000 vide Document No.539/2000 and they got

Ac.0-33 Cents and Ac.0-13½ cents respectively. Therefore, Ch.

Suryanarayana (6th Respondent in the writ petition) claiming right

in Sy.No.142 of Mangalagiri. It is significant that a well exists in MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

Ac.0-04 cents of land in Sy.No.142, which is immediately adjacent

or contiguous to the boundary of the land in Sy.No.143 of

Mangalagiri, Guntur District and the same was mentioned in the

Sale Deed Dt.16-04-1994 executed in favour of Ch.Suryanarayana

(6th Respondent in the Writ Petition) and got issued a Legal Notice

dated 17-05-2013 to the writ petitioner, stating that the first

respondent making a claim in respect of their land making an

extent of Ac.0-33 cents and Ac.0-13 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.143

of Mangalagiri. The 6th respondent in W.P. also executed a

registered Gift Deed Dt.21-09-2012 in favour of his wife and son

vide Document No.8470/2012 in respect of Ac.0-33 cents of land

in Sy.No.143 of Mangalagiri, which fell to his share in the Partition

effected between him and his brother under a registered Partition

Deed dated 10-02-2000 referred above. Therefore, it is not open to

the 6th Respondent in the writ petition to claim any right or by the

implead petitioner.

After filing of the writ petition and on hearing this Hon‟ble

High Court passed an interim order Dt.02-11-2017 in favour of the

writ petitioner, on prima facie consideration of the material

available on record suspending the order Dt.02-01-2017 passed by

the Revenue Divisional Officer, which stood confirmed by the Joint

Collector, Guntur in revision on 14-05-2017. Therefore, the

averments made by the implead petitioners (proposed parties) have

no foundation and do not hold any water. The Reg. sale deed Dt.

08-06-2017 said to have been executed in favour of Sri Pothineni

Srinivasa Rao (implead petitioner No.1), the leader of the political

party then in power, is a void document brought into existence by MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

influencing the registering authorities in collusion with the

executants of the deed who have themselves no semblance of right

to any piece of land in Sy.No.142 of Mangalagiri Village, Guntur

District at any point of time except the might of the manpower.

Basing on such fabricated and void document, the proposed

parties brought into existence, another document styled as

development agreement Dt.21-10-2017, relying on which the

present petition is filed.

It is further submitted they themselves have stated that the

proposed party No.2 filed a civil suit O.S.No.113 of 2018 on the file

of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the writ

petitioner and others and with the help of the proposed party No.1,

who is a local leader of the opposition party backed by an ex-

minister of Guntur District, is making a vain and uncharitable

effort to dispossess the writ petitioner from the landed property in

Sy.No.142 of Mangalagiri Village. It is also necessary to state that

the writ petitioner‟s mother filed O.S.No. 207 of 22018 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for declaration of title and

consequential permanent injunction in respect of 900 Sq. Yds of

plot out of Ac.34 ½ cents in Sy.No.142 near Municipal Door

No.11-1847, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and a commissioner was

appointed to note the physical features of the said property ;and it

is pending execution and finally requested to dismiss the

interlocutory application.

Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the

petitioners herein/proposed respondents and Sri M. Chalapathi

Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner.

MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

W.P.No.20512 of 2017 is filed for issue of writ of certiorari,

calling for the records from the file of the third respondent/Joint

Collector, Guntur in R.C.No.187/2017-D5 and quash the order

dated 14.05.2017 passed by him confirming the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.01.2017 in ROR case

R.Dis.No.3329/2016-A, reversing the order of the Tahsildar,

Mangalagiri, where the pattadar passbook and title deed bearing

No.435897 were issued to the petitioner for Ac.0-34 cents in

Sy.No.142 of Mangalagiri and finally, R.C.No.187/2017-D5 and

dated 14.05.2017 passed by the Joint Collector is under challenge.

The proposed respondents are also claiming the same

property by way of purchase and therefore, their rights are being

affected on account of reversal of the order, if any passed and

sought to implead themselves as Respondent Nos.7 & 8 in the writ

petition, as they got interest in the property prima facie.

Undoubtedly, a party can be impleaded only to avoid

multiplicity of proceedings, subject to establishing their interest in

the property.

Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. permits addition of parties or

striking out of parties. Rule 16 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh High

Court Writ Rules is almost akin to Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Rule

16 (a) of the Writ Rules is extracted hereunder for better

appreciation.

16 (a) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application and on such terms as may appear to be just, order that the name of any party in improperly joined be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the court MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the petition, be added.

(b) At the hearing of the petition or application, any person who desires to be heard in opposition to the petition or application and appears to the Court to be a proper person to be heard may be heard, subject to such conditions as to costs as the Court may deem fit to impose.

Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. contemplates cases in which a suit

is brought by a plaintiff who subsequently discovers that he cannot

get the full relief he seeks without joinder of some other persons as

co-plaintiffs, or where it is found that some other persons and not

the original plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the forum

the suit, application is filed. Therefore, in those circumstances, the

parties to a suit may implead third party either as the plaintiff or

defendant, or third party may come on record as party, if the

interest of the third party is likely to be affected if the suit is

disposed of either way.

The object of this rule is to discourage contests on technical

pleas and to save honest and bonafide claimants from being non

suited. Therefore, this rule has been held to be applicable to

enquiries into Civil proceedings before the Civil Court irrespective

of their nature. The rule says that a person may be added as a

party to a suit in two cases, namely (1) when he ought to have

been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined or (2)

when without his presence the questions in the suit cannot be

completely decided. Therefore, in view of Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.,

the intention of the legislature incorporating Order 1 Rule 10 of

C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to decide the lis

pending before it effectively and completely, as such the Court may MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

permit the parties to come on record in the pending suit or

proceedings only with a view to put an end to the litigation leaving

no scope for any technicalities and adjudicate the dispute between

the parties concerned to the subject matter of the lis.

Rule 16 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Rules is

also incorporated only to achieve the object similar to Order 1 Rule

10 of C.P.C. The purport of Rule 16 (a) of the Writ Rules is almost

identical to the purport of Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. Both these

rules permit addition of parties or striking out parties on the

application of either of the party to the pending suit or writ petition

or on the application of third party himself/herself only with a view

to decide the dispute effectively and completely.

Therefore, tests laid down under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.

can be applied even in the writ petition in view of the analogous

language used in both Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and Rule 16 (a) of

Writ Rules.

The tests to be applied for addition of third party to the

pending proceedings before the Civil Court are

(1) If, for the adjudication of the "real controversy" hetween the parties on record, the presence of a third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded;

(2) it is imperative to note that by such impleading of the proposed party all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject matter which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself;

(3) The proposed party has a defined, substituting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation, which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognizable in law; (4) meticulous care should be taken to avoid the adding of a party if it is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

grievances of one or the other of the parties on record which is neither necessary nor expedient to be considered by the Court in the pending litigation; and (5) it should always be remembered that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by the Court by adding a new party whose interest has nexus to the subject matter of the suit. (Vide: Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills v. Chennimalal Gounder1").

Among the tests stated above, it may also be noted that

persons cannot be added as parties to a suit merely because it may

save the expenses of separate suit for seeking adjudication on the

claim made by them, which is not directly and substantially the

subject-matter of the suit. (Vide: B.Somaiah v Amina Begum2)

Thus, to exercise power to implead any third party either on

the application of parties to the proceedings or suit or on the

application of third party, the Court has to satisfy itself by applying

tests as to whether the proposed party can be added if their case is

fit into the tests laid down in the judgment (referred supra) by the

High Court of Madras.

In "Antony Devaraj v. Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi)

Devasahayam Mount Oor and Thuya Viagula, Annai Church

rep by the Trustee3", the Madras High Court considered the right

of a third party to claim addition of party. It was held as follows:-

"(i) The plaintiff may choose to implead only those persons as defendants as against whom he wishes to proceed with. However, it is open for the Court to add, at any stage of the suit, a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.

AIR 1968 Mad 287

AIR 1976 AP 184

2004(2) C.T.C. 183 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

(ii) A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceedings. Addition of the parties would depend upon the judicial discretion which has to be exercised, in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

(iii) The person to be added as one of the parties must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved, but it should make him as necessary witness.

(iv) The third party cannot be considered to be a necessary party for deciding the main issue framed in the suit. Mere ground that inclusion of the proposed third party would not alter the structure of the suit may not entitle the party to ask the Court to implead the third party as a defendant,

(v) The Court may upon an application or suo motu, in a fit and proper case, implead a new party as defendant, even against the plaintiff's consent under certain circumstances. The discretion vested with the Court though wide is however circumscribed by the limitations which are built in the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. Where a person is neither necessary nor proper party, the Court has no jurisdiction to add him as a party. If the question at issue between the parties can be worked out without anyone else being brought in, the stranger should not be added as a party.

(vi) Normally, the Court should not add a person as defendant when the plaintiff is already available to project his case. The reason is that the plaintiff is the 'dominus litis'. He is the best judge of his own interest and it should be left to him to choose his opponent from whom he wants relief. If he seeks relief against a particular person, it is not the look out of the Court to see whether the relief should be claimed against the other persons, nor is it a duty of the Court to investigate whether the necessary parties have been added or left out.

(vii) A person is not to be added as a defendant merely because he or she would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The main consideration is whether or not the presence of such a person is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit.

(viii) Persons whose interests would be affected by the litigation are entitled to come on record to protect their interests when those are jeopardised by the persons already on record.

Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to distinguish

proper and necessary party.

Necessary parties are parties who ought to have been joined

ie., Parties necessary to the constitution of the suit, without whom

no decree at all can be passed, while proper parties are those MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

whose presence enables the court to adjudicate more effectively

and completely. (Vide: Venkata Nagayya v Sitaramayya4 and

Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills v. Chennimalal Gounder (referred

supra)).

In "Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V Regency

Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd.5" the words „proper and

necessary party‟ are distinguished as follows:

"A „necessary party‟ is a person who ought to have been 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 impleaded, 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 dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."

In Para No.13 of the same judgment, the Apex Court made it

clear that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is

that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the

persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be

compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any

relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be

impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule

is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil

1955 An.WR 322

2010(7) SCC 417 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of

proper or necessary party".

A proper party is one without whose presence, the question

in the suit cannot be completely and effectually adjudicated upon.

If he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, the court has

no jurisdiction to add him as a party. In regard to determining the

question, who is a necessary party to a proceeding, two tests are

laid down, they are as follows:

(1) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the

matter involved in the proceedings in question.

(2) It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of

such a party. (Vide: Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of

Wards, Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain6)

In another judgment, Punjab-Haryana High Court in

"Harcharan Singh v. Financial Commissioner7" referred earlier

judgment in "Hazura Singh v. Sukhdev Singh8" where it was

held that the essence for being made a party in a suit is either the

party should be necessary or a proper party in order to determine

the subject-matter of the suit affectively. There is no gainsaying

that necessary party as observed by a catena of authorities is the

one, in whose presence the suit can be decided either effectively or

no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The proper party is the one

whose presence is considered to be proper in order to provide

effective relief to the plaintiff and for avoiding multiplicity of

litigation, i.e. for shortening the litigation. Proper party is one

AIR 1953 SC 521

AIR 1997 P H 40

1996 PLJ 37 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

whose presence is considered appropriate for effective decision of

case, though no relief may have been claimed against him. In the

present case even without the joining of the present applicants in

the main writ petition would determine the subject-matter of the

writ petition effectively. The writ petitioners have not claimed any

relief against the present applicants, who are bound by the rights

and obligations of their vendor Kulwinder Singh. In this very

authority it was laid down that the plaintiff (writ petitioner) is the

dominus litus. No person can be impleaded unless he is necessary

or proper party to the lis to get his rights determined in the suit of

another party. In "Pranakrushna v. Umakanta Panda9", it was

held as follows (paras 8 and 9);--

"Under the provision of R. 10(2) of O. 1, the Court may add the name of any person to the suit who ought to have been joined, either as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court is necessary. In a suit for declaration of title a transferee from the defendant pendente lite is neither a necessary nor a proper party inasmuch as he would be bound by the decree in the suit in view of the principle contained in S. 52 of the T.P. Act. The intervenors could not have been added as parties to the suit in the beginning. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the presence of the intervenors was necessary to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit effectually and completely. A person is not to be added as a defendant merely because he would be affected by the judgment. The main consideration is whether or not the presence of such person is necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. The intervenors the purchasers of property during pendency of suit were neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the points involved in the suit viz. title to the suit property and, therefore, the provision of O.1, R. 10 was not attracted."

AIR 1989 Orissa 148 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

In "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member,

Board of Revenue, Bihar10" the Apex Court held that to answer

the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to

ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The

law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the

principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be

made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an

effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a

complete and final decision on the question involved in the

proceeding.

In "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member,

Board of Revenue, Bihar" (referred supra) the Apex Court further

held as follows:

"The next question is whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi-judicial act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of certiorari the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without the successful party being before it ? Without the presence of the successful party the High Court cannot issue a substantial order affecting his right. Any order that may be issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by the said party, with the result that the tribunal's order would be quashed but the right vested in that party by the wrong order of the tribunal would continue to be effective. Such a party, therefore, is a necessary party and a petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari without making him a party or without impleading him subsequently, if allowed by the court, would certainly be incompetent. A party whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a necessary party.

AIR 1963 SC 786 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

In addition, there may be parties who may be described as proper parties, that is parties whose presence is not necessary for making an effective order but whose presence may facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy. The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein.

The long established English practice, which the High Courts in our country have adopted all along, accepts the said distinction between the necessary and the proper party in a writ of certiorari. The English practice is recorded in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, 3rd Edn. (Lord Simonds') thus in paragraph 136 :

"The notice of motion or summons must be served on all persons directly affected, and where it relates to any proceedings in or before a court, and the object is either to compel the court or an officer thereof to do any act in relation to the proceedings or to quash them or any order made therein, the notice of motion or summons must be served on the clerk or registrar of the court, the other parties to the proceedings, and (where any objection to the conduct of the judge is to be made) on the judge ........".

In paragraph 140 it is stated :

"On the hearing of the summons or motion for an order of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, counsel in support begins and has a right of reply. Any person who desires to be heard in opposition, and appears to the Court or judge to be a proper person to be heard, is to be heard not withstanding that he has not been served with the notice or summons, and will be liable to costs in the discretion of the Court or judge if the order should be made .............".

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in "Udit

Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of

Revenue, Bihar" (referred supra), if the presence of any third party

is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute,

the Court may permit such third party to implead as respondent or

petitioner. In the absence of any subsisting substantial interest in MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

the subject matter of the dispute, third party, whose presence is

dispensable, cannot be permitted to come on record.

In "Bank of California v. Superior Court11", the Court

candidly held that when the presence of the parties is

indispensable for adjudication of the dispute pending before the

Court, they can be called as necessary parties in whose absence

the matter cannot be adjudicated completely and effectively.

If the principle laid down in "Bank of California v.

Superior Court" (referred supra) applied to the present facts of the

case, certainly, the presence of the proposed parties is not

dispensable, even in their absence this Court can effectively and

completely adjudicate the dispute pending before the Court. The

necessity of a party in a writ jurisdiction totally varies from case to

case and depends upon the circumstances of each case. However,

both, proposed parties and writ petitioner putforth their rival claim

in the property. in case the issue is decided in the absence of

proposed parties, it would seriously cause prejudice to the rights of

the petitioners/proposed parties. Hence, I find that the

petitioners/proposed parties are necessary parties to the writ

petition in whose absence any order cannot be passed.

In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments,

unless the presence of a party cannot be dispensed with, to pass

an effective order in the pending proceedings either in a civil court

or writ proceedings, the Court cannot permit the persons to come

on record in a pending matter.

16 Cal.2d 516 MSM,J I.ANo.1 of 2021 IN

In the instant case on record, the proposed respondents/

petitioners herein intended to come on record based on the alleged

purchase or property. In fact, they entered into Development

Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney with the partners and

the land ceased to be an agricultural land, thereby, question of

issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of proposed

respondents/petitioners herein does not arise.

In any view of the matter, irrespective of the nature of land,

in case, pattadar passbooks and title deeds are issued in favour of

the proposed respondents/petitioners herein, setting aside the

impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, Guntur i.e.

R.C.No.187/2017-D5 and dated 14.05.2017, the rights of the

proposed respondents/petitioners herein will be affected seriously

and it will give rise to another cause of action for filing different

proceedings. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the

presence of the proposed parties cannot be dispensed with, for

effective adjudication of the claim before this Court. Hence, I find

that the proposed respondents/petitioners herein are necessary

parties to the pending litigation.

In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed.

Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments

within one week and post the writ petition for hearing after one

week.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:08.04.2022

SP