Telangana High Court
B.Subba Rao vs M.Narsing Yadav And 7 Others on 21 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRP.NO.1455 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
The present is the Civil Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner, who is respondent No.1 in IA.No.656 of 2015 and
plaintiff in OS.No.199 of 2015 on the file of Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Kukatpally. This revision has been filed under
Article 227 of Constitution of India questioning the correctness
of the impugned order in the above referred interlocutory
application by which the trial Court allowed the petition filed
by the respondents/proposed defendants No.5 to 8 in the
above referred suit.
2. As could be seen from the order impugned in the
present revision, it shows that the present revision petitioner
has filed OS.No.199 of 2015 against four defendants and
sought for perpetual injunction to restrain them from
interfering with his alleged possession on plaint A, B and C
properties. When the said suit was pending before the trial
Court, the respondents No.1 to 3 herein have filed IA.No.656
of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of Civil
2 SSRN, J
Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') with a prayer to add them
as defendants No.5 to 8 in the main suit.
3. In support of their petition, the
1st respondent/petitioner No.1/proposed defendant No.5 filed
his own affidavit. As per the said affidavit, it is pleaded that
the respondent/plaintiff filed this suit against four defendants
for a perpetual injunction but the said suit was filed by the
parties to the suit in view of their collusion to grab the suit
schedule property. The respondents have also claimed that
land in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village was to an extent of
Ac.274-33 gts. The Revenue Records shows that Sy.No.57 is
a Government land and State Government through Revenue
Divisional Officer, Chevella filed a land grabbing case vide
LGC.No.106 of 1989 against one Mohd.Bahabuddin Khan and
others. The Special Court under Land Grabbing Act passed a
judgment in the said case on 15-12-1994 directing the land
grabbers, who have occupied the property to vacate the
property. Therefore, the respondents in the said LGC filed
WP.No.2644 of 1999 before the High Court at Hyderabad.
The said Writ Petition was disposed by the High Court by
judgment dated 13-11-1997 by granting one month time to
3 SSRN, J
the petitioners therein to vacate the land which was in their
possession. Thereafter, the Government could successfully
take over possession of the property.
4. The respondents further claimed that by
suppressing the above legal proceedings, Mohd. Mohiuddin
Khan and others obtained a collusive decree in C.S.No.7/1958
and also obtained a Final Decree on 30-12-2011. The present
petitioner obtained mutation proceedings in respect of the
property by suppressing the proceedings in the above referred
LGC case. While narrating the subsequent events, the
respondents/defendants have claimed that Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy suspended the mutation ordered by MRO.
Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed WP.No.26288/2015
before the High Court at Hyderabad. The said Writ Petition
was disposed by the High Court with certain directions.
5. The respondents have also claimed that they have
been in possession of different extents covered by the
property shown in the schedule in the above referred
OS.No.199 of 2015. But the present petitioner has no right,
title, interest or possession over Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda
Village. They want to obtain a decree by colluding with the
4 SSRN, J
defendants No.1 to 4, thereby, having claimed that they are
proper and necessary parties to the suit, they prayed for their
impleadment into the suit. Even though, the present
petitioner/plaintiff opposed the petition, the trial Court having
heard the parties, allowed the petition under the impugned
order.
6. Being not happy with the said order, the petitioner
has filed the present revision petition assailing the order on
the ground that the trial Court ought to have observed that
respondents No.1 to 4 are not claiming any right through
respondents No.5 to 8. If the respondents, who wanted to
come on record as defendants No.5 to 8 have got any
grievance, they can file a separate proceeding. The petitioner
has also claimed that when he is not claiming any relief
against the respondents 1 to 5, they cannot be treated as
proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. Therefore,
prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both parties.
8. Now the point for consideration in the present
revision is:
Whether the trial Court was wrong in allowing the request
of respondents No.1 to 4 for their impleadment as defendants
5 SSRN, J
No.5 to 8 in the suit that was filed by the present petitioner
against respondents No.5 to 8 on the ground that the suit was
only for a relief of perpetual injunction and there was no prayer
seeking any relief against the proposed defendants?
9. It may be true that the petitioner herein has filed
the suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that he has got
possession over the suit schedule plots and there was an
attempt by the defendants shown in the suit, who are
referred as respondents No.5 to 8 in the present revision
petition. It may be true that the petitioner/plaintiff did not
seek any relief against the respondents No.1 to 4. The
learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
being author of the plaint cannot be forced to add a party
against whom he is not claiming any relief. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
if the suit that was filed by the petitioner against an
unconcerned person without noticing the actual possessors of
the property is ordered, definitely it will lead to multiplicity of
the proceedings and rights of the parties, who were in
possession of the property, would be prejudiced.
10. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support
of the petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 4, they have
raised so many issues including a land grabbing case in
6 SSRN, J
respect of the vast extent of land in Sy.No.57. The
petitioner/plaintiff did not dispute the averments made in the
affidavit. Therefore, it was the specific contention of the
respondents that the petitioner/plaintiff herein or respondents
No.5 to 8/defendants No.5 to 8 are nothing to do with the suit
plots. On the other hand, they have specifically claimed that
they have been in possession of the property.
11. In such a case, if the respondents, who claimed to
have been in possession of the property were not added and
ignoring the other averments made in the affidavit which goes
to show the earlier proceedings including landing grabbing
case, revenue proceedings and the claim of respondents No.1
to 4 that they are in possession of the property, the suit filed
by the petitioner herein was decreed, definitely, it would
cause prejudice to the contentions of the persons, who
claimed to have been in possession of the property. Even if
the respondents are ordered to be impleaded to the suit and
even if they filed their respective pleadings still the
petitioner/plaintiff will have a right to retaliate the said claim
by filing rejoinder and by cross-examining the witnesses that
may be produced by the respondents No.1 to 4.
7 SSRN, J
12. As per the Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC, if the Court
believes that a litigation could not be completely adjudicated
without the presence of a particular party and the failure to
add a particular party in a suit or proceeding leads to
multiplicity of the proceedings definitely such person can be
added as a party to the proceeding.
13. Therefore, the trial Court having considered all
these aspects rightly allowed the application filed by the
respondent No.1 to 4. Therefore, the said order cannot be
interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J
21st June, 2024.
PLV
