Kathi David Raju vs Ramavath Krishna Naik
2022 Latest Caselaw 9455 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 of 2022

   Kathi David Raju, S/o Late Yedukondalu, R/o Q.No.E-11, E1
   Block, Pinakini Colony, SDSTPS, Nelaturu Village, Muthukur
   Mandla, SPSR Nellore District.

                                                     ... Petitioner
                               Versus

   Ramavath Krishna Naik, S/o gopa Naik, aged about 54 years,
   State   President,   Lamadi   Hakkula    Porata   Samithi,
   Regd.No.9847/2000 (working as BTC, presently residing at
   ADEN, South Central Railway, West Guntur, Guntur District -
   522 002) and another

                                                   ... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner              : SriG.V.S. Kishore Kumar
Counsel for respondents                 : ---


                             ORDER:

Plaintiff, in the suit filed, the present civil revision

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

aggrieved by order, dated 30.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.107 of

2020 in O.S.No.110 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.110 of 2018 to declare that

plaintiff's name is Kathi David Raju, S/o late Yedukondalu,

but not Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Venkata

Kotaiah and that Kathi David Raju and Immadabathina

Veeranjaneyulu are different persons as per the educational

certificates.

3. Defendants filed written statement and are contesting

the suit.

4. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.107 of 2020

under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add respondent Nos.3 to 13 as

defendant Nos.3 to 13 in the main suit and in subsequent

petitions.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was

contended inter alia that respondent No.4, District Collector

passed order vide R.C.No.14/2016/C4, dated 18.02.2020;

that respondent No.5, Joint Collector and Chairman DLSC,

Guntur District gave findings on caste enquiry report; that

respondent Nos.6 and 7, subordinates of respondent Nos.4

and 5, participated in the enquiry; that respondent Nos.6

and 7 colluded with respondent No.1 and arranged

respondent No.3, Kathi John/Chinna John and lured him to

give false statement against the petitioner; that respondent

Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other and filed a fake crime

in Bapatla Police Station against the petitioner stating that

petitioner changed his name and fraudulently obtained fake

caste certificate; that respondent No.8 is employer of the

petitioner; that respondent Nos.9 to 13 are sub-ordinates of

respondent No.8; that when the suit is pending, respondent

No.8 issued charge sheet, dated 09.03.2020 to the petitioner

on the basis of notification issued by respondent No.4; that

one of the charges in the charge sheet issued by respondent

No.8 is that the petitioner obtained ST Yanadi caste

certificate fraudulently basing on the transfer certificate

belonging to another person by name Kathi John David @

David Raju, S/o Yedukondalu, the subject matter in the suit;

that W.P.No.6576 of 2020 was filed before the High Court

against respondent No.4 and High Court granted stay in

I.A.No.1 of 2020 and the same is being extended from time to

time; that petitioner submitted explanation to respondent

No.8 on 18.03.2020 through proper channel; that respondent

Nos.8 to 13 did not stop further proceedings and started

departmental enquiry; that if the matter is decided against

the petitioner, it may contradict and cause loss to the

petitioner; that respondent Nos.3 to 13 are necessary parties

to the suit proceedings and hence filed petition to implead

respondent Nos.3 to 13 as party defendants to the suit.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter and opposed the

application. In the counter it was contended inter alia that

though plaintiff belongs to Telaga (O.C.) caste, he assumed

the name of S.T. by name Kathi David Raju, obtained study

certificate by impersonating said Kathi David Raju and got

job by cheating the Government; that under Section 17 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community

Certificate Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), jurisdiction of civil

Court is barred and the proposed parties are not necessary

parties and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. Respondent No.6 filed separate counter and contended

interalia about petitioner's securing job by obtaining false

certificate, etc.

8. By order, dated 30.08.2022, trial Court dismissed the

application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is

filed.

9. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to the

suit. He would also contend that the name of the petitioner is

Katti David Raju, but not Imadabathini Veeranjaneyulu and

pending the suit, proposed parties are enquiring into the

caste of the petitioner. Hence, they are proper and necessary

parties to the suit. Learned counsel would also submit that

civil court got jurisdiction to look into the caste certificate

and also the order of caste cancellation certificate passed by

respondent No.4.

11. The following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the Court below failed to exercise the

jurisdiction properly, warranting interference of this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether proposed parties are proper and necessary

parties to the suit?

12. Order I Rule 10 of CPC enables the Court to add any

person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person

whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to

enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate

upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the

objects of the said provision in the Code. It also empowers the

Court to substitute a party in the suit, a wrong person with a

right person. If the Court is satisfied that the suit has been

instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is

necessary for the determination of the real matter in

controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it

to be done. When the Court finds that in the absence of the

persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the

controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and

completely settled, the Court would do justice by impleading

such persons.

13. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to

the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in

prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded

in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is

necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.

14. A necessary party is a person who ought to have been

arrayed/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 arrayed, 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 disputes in the suit, though he need not be a

person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.

15. However, when an application is filed seeking

impleadment, the Court has to see whether the proposed

parties are proper and necessary to adjudicate the lis in the

suit basing on the facts of the each case.

16. In the case on hand, the relief sought for in the main

suit is to declare that the name of the petitioner is Kathi

David Raju, S/o Yedukondalu.

17. A careful perusal of the plaint shows that no allegations

were made against the proposed parties. Even in the implead

petition, no relief is sought against the proposed parties,

except seeking impleadment. All the allegations are against

defendant Nos.1 and 2. As can be seen from the record,

respondent No.3 is the person, who has lodged complaint

basing on which criminal case was registered. Respondent

Nos.4 to 7 are government and revenue officials and they are

no way concerned with the present suit. Respondent Nos.8

to 13 are department personnel of the petitioner, who are

conducting departmental enquiry. They are also nothing to do

with the relief sought for in the suit.

18. As discussed supra, in the absence of any assertions

against the proposed parties regarding their role and the

relief sought against them, they cannot be impleaded as party

defendants to the suit as proper and necessary parties. The

trial Court after considering all these aspects, dismissed the

petition.

19. In Jai Singh and Ors. Vs. Municipal corporation of

Delhi and Ors.1, while dealing with scope and ambit of

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held thus:

25. Undoubtedly, the High Court has the power to reach injustice whenever, wherever found. The scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India had been discussed in the case of The Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it was observed as follows:

The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.

20. In view of expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court supra,

since the trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested with it

(2010) 9 SCC 385

judiciously, interference of this court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is not warranted. Hence, the revision is

liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly this revision is dismissed at the stage of

admission.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

__________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Date : 08.12.2022 ikn

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 of 2022

Date: 08.12.2022

ikn