Telangana High Court
Kongara Babu Rao vs Chebelli Esthari on 2 December, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2771 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who is the
plaintiff in O.S.No.150 of 2016, against the order dated 28.09.2022
whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of
C.P.C to implead the Revenue Authorities as party to the Suit has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Suit was
filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for declaration of title and
recovery of possession. He submitted that the defendants are
relying upon certain entries in the Revenue Records. It is submitted
that the petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities for
corrections of the entries, but they directed the petitioner to
approach the Civil Court. He submits that since the Revenue
Authorities are responsible for maintenance and corrections of
revenue records, they are proper and necessary parties for
adjudication of the Suit. Therefore, he has filed I.A.No.288 of 2021
for impleading the District Collector, Jangaon; Revenue Divisional
PMD,J
C.R.P.No.2771 of 2022
Officer, Jangaon; Tahsildar, Raghunathpally and Village Revenue
Officer, Nidigonda Village as parties i.e. as respondents No.11 to 14
to the Suit. The Principal District Judge, Janagaon has however,
dismissed the said application by holding that merely because of
wrong entries in the revenue records, it will not entitle the petitioner
to add the respondents No.11 to 14 as necessary parties as it is an
admitted fact that there were disputes between the petitioner and
respondents No.2, 3, 9 and 10 with regard to the entries of the
names of the defendants in the pahanies and through due process
of law, the petitioner had applied to the Tahsildar, Raghunathpally
for the copies of the documents and the respondent in turn has
given a memo vide RC.No.B/15/2010 dated 06.01.2016 stating that
no files are available. Lower Court has held that either of the parties
in the Suit have to legally approach the Court for producing of the
documents and adduce oral evidence by calling the revenue officials
as witnesses but the revenue authorities cannot be made as parties
to the Suit. Challenging the said finding of the Lower Court, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
PMD,J
C.R.P.No.2771 of 2022
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udit Narain singh
Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar
reported in 1963 Supp (1) SCR 676: AIR 1963 SC 786 in
support of his contentions that the Revenue officials are necessary
and proper parties to the Suit.
4. However, this Court finds that the said judgment was in
relation to a Writ Petition where proper and necessary parties were
not made as parties to the said Writ Petition in Writ of Certiorari, it
was held that "a necessary party is one without whom no order can
be made effectively and 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."
5. However, in this case, this Court finds that the Suit is for
declaration of title and recovery of possession, and the presence of
the respondents No.11 to 14 is not necessary for adjudication of the
PMD,J
C.R.P.No.2771 of 2022
Suit, but the petitioner can get the evidence by making necessary
applications as rightly held by the lower Court.
6. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Civil
Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision
Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 02.12.2022
PRN/TU
PMD,J
C.R.P.No.2771 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2771 of 2022
Date: 02.12.2022
PRN/TU
