Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Voona Rama Rao Died Per Lrs vs Tankala Ragunatham, on 5 December, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANOHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!

MONDAY, THE FIFTH GAY OF QECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
SPRESENT:
THE HONCURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

JA NO .2 OF 2022
iN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: § OF £022

DRE Ro

| -- Setween:
F

; Rinthali Rajeswara Ran, Sic. Laie Sri Ramulu. aged about OF years, Rig. 70+
16.26, Main Road, Galuweka, Visakhapatnam.

..Patitioner/Proposed Respondent No.7?
AND

verte

foorme Rama Rao (died per L Rs},
VV Padmavathi, Win. fate Vv Rana Rao, aged SS years.
V Satish, S/o. late V. Rama Rao, aged 34 years.
ve nh, Sfo. late V. Rane Rac, aged 32 years.
JM Rajes aah, So. late V. Rarna Rac, agad 20 years.

a

¥ Siresh, Bvo. late V. Narna Nao, aged <7 years,

tn BO bo

Ab ars Rio. RoorNo. 10-10-28, Main Road, Gahnvaks, Visakhapatnam}
__ Respondents/Petitioners

Tankal ais Ragunatiam, BIS, late Verkatesam, Aged 62 years, Ro. Odor. No. 2
7-345, Sairamn Nagar, Gatuwaka, Visakhapainar.
8, Menual Appayyannna x fiecl per Les},
a wi &@ Babu Ran, Sin. iste Haburt Manual,
Rese e Mary. | Dig. late Nabburt Manual.
_ONo. Iate Habburt Manual.
Sent Dasiny Vie. Gurumadha Rao,

ne ant nthe
No
; 3
3
mh.
ig
ae
Be

 Respondenia/Respondenis
JAM are Rio. HLNa, 8-145, Jogavanipgiom, Gay waka, Yisakhanatnan)
_Raspondents/Appellants {to 6 & Respondents 4 fo 8
iReapondents 8 te 14 are nol necessary}

Petition under Qrder 1 Rule 10 raw Sectian 153 CRG praying that in the
ciroummtanoes stated in the affidavl Med ui suppart of the patito on, fhe High Court
may be pigased to impiead [hse pebhonar as Respond tent No? in the above CMSA 8
of 2022 and pass, Pending oh ispasal of CMSA 8 of 2022, on the fie of the High Court,

ys

CMS ANo. § of 2026

Petition under Saction 100 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and decres

dated ee passed by the ee . Additional Pistrict Judge, Ganrwaks,
Visakhapatnam District in GOMA.No. 2 of 2078 reversing the Judgment and Decree
«

mage

wi AG toe



dated 21.9.2012 passed in A.S.No 16 of 2009 Dt. 21-09-2022 on the file of the Court
of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

IANO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 of CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in
the petition and the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to stay all
further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and decree dated 5-7-2022 passed in
C.M.A.No. 2 of 2016 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, pending
disposal of C.M.S.A. No. 8 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.

The C.M.S.A coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of
grounds filed therein, and earlier orders of High Court dated 19.09.2022, 22.09.2022,
17-10-2022, 31-10-2022, 14.11.2022, -21.11.2022 & 28.11.2022 made herein and
upon hearing the arguments of -Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, Advocate _ for
Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.7, Sri V.V. Satish, Advocate for Respondents
Nos.1 to 6 and of Sri ASC Bose, Advocate for respondent No.7, the Court made the
following.

ORDER:

"This application is filed to implead the petitioner as Respondent No.7 in the above CMSA.

Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ proposed party would contend that the proposed party/ petitioner after obtaining the registered sale deed in his favour has filed O.S.No.110 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for eviction of the appellants herein. The 1% respondent in the CMSA filed an application in |.A.No. 50 of 2019 in O.S.No. 410 of 2014 seeking stay till the disposal of O.S.No. 208 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. Further the 1°* respondent herein is trying to knock away the property behind him back and that an application filed by him seeking claim over the said property, which is still pending. | have vested rights over the property. If the proposed party is not brought on record as 7" respondent in the above CMSA _ the proposed petitioner's rights will be affected adversely and any amount of prejudice will be caused to him. Hence this application is filed to implead

himself as 7" respondent in the above CMSA.

The respondents 2 to 6 in the implead petition filed counter-affidavit, inter alia contended that the implead petitioner is claiming right over the suit schedule property on the ground that the 2™ respondent in the CMSA entered

into an Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2001 and paid entire sale consideration and that he filed suit for specific performance and the same was decreed on 24.06.2008. Thereafter Execution Petition filed for execution of decree and that the trial court executed the Registered Sale Deed dated 22.09.2009. The respondents are not party to disputes between the 2"° respondent and the proposed petitioner. Therefore the said order is not binding on the respondents/ petitioners. The and respondent in order to evict the respondents/ petitioners conspired with 1° respondent and the implead petitioner, and inducted them into the fis. Therefore the 1° respondent and the implead petitioner have no ownership over the subject property and they have got

nothing to do with the same. Hence requested to dismiss the application.

This Court finds that the proposed petitioner is filed claim petition before the court below, which is pending before the 1° Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in E.P.No.10 of 2008 and that the proposed petitioner apprehended that the 1** respondent herein trying to knock away the property, if he succeeds the same, the proposed petitioner will suffer great loss and hardship. Therefore this application is filed in this CMSA to implead him as a party to the proceedings. |

However, this Court finds that mere apprehension of knocking away the subject property by the 4° respondent in this application is not a ground to seek the relief of implead him as party to the proceedings in CMSA. It is undisputed fact that the proposed petitioner has been instituted the claim application, which is pending. Further the proposed petitioner filed an application in LA.No. 1228 of 2010 in A.S.No. 16 of 2009 to implead him as respondent No.3 therein, which was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka by its order dated 27.02.2012. Assailing the same, the C.R.P.No.1862 of 2012 and this Court allowed the same and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal.

Therefore, this Court inclined to dismiss the application with a direction

" . to the proposed petitioner to putforth'his contentions before the court below in

the claim petition and it is left open for the proposed petitioner to seek relief of

declaration of title over the subject property by way of a suit before the

competent civil court of law. So far no steps had been taken before the court below and approached this Court ard this Court finds no bonafide reason made out in the application and same'is liable to be dismissed.

With the above direction, this application is dismissed."

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Mf TRUE COPY//

Fo N OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The Xill Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District,

3. One CC to Sri V.V. Satish, Advocate(OPUC)

4. One CC to Sri ASC Bose, Advocate(OPUC)

8. One CC to Sri V.V.N.Narasimham Advocate [OPUC]

6. One spare copy. :

CVSS