Telangana High Court
Smt. Bharatamma vs M. Durgamma And 5 Others on 28 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.977 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by
the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in
A.S.No.269 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, whereunder, the said
petition was allowed.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent No.2 in
I.A.No.2155 of 2019. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are
petitioners in the said I.A., and the respondent No.6 is
respondent No.1 in the said I.A.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as arrayed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1
filed A.S.No.269 of 2016 and in the said A.S., the
petitioners/third parties filed I.A.No.2155 of 2019 under
Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC')
SKS,J
praying to implead them as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the
main case. Earlier, the respondent No.1 filed suit against
respondent No.2 vide O.S.No.608 of 2015 seeking declaration
and recovery of possession and the same was dismissed with
an observation that the third parties were not added as
parties to the suit. As such, when the third parties came to
know about the same, they filed the I.A., seeking to implead
them as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the main case.
5. In the said application, a counter was filed on behalf of
respondent No.2 denying the averments made by petitioners
and contending that the petitioners are neither proper nor
necessary parties to the appeal and that the petition was filed
by them without disclosing the relationship with the
respondent No.1 and only with an intention to prolong the
appeal. It was admitted that respondent No.1 filed
O.S.No.608 of 2015 seeking declaration of title and that the
trial Court after full fledged trial had dismissed the suit
holding that respondent No.1 is not exclusive owner of the
suit schedule property and has failed to implead the third
parties. It was alleged that petitioners relinquished their
rights over the suit schedule property and are falsely claiming
SKS,J
their ownership over the subject property, as such, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. After hearing the submissions made by either side, the
trial Court allowed I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016
vide order dated 11.03.2022. Aggrieved thereby, this revision
petition is preferred by respondent No.2 in the said I.A.
7. Heard Sri S.Prabhakar, learned counsel for revision
petitioner, and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for
respondents.
8. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that
the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.A.No.2155 of 2019
as the proposed respondents did not file any implead petition
during the course of the suit and thereafter, during the
course of appeal, they filed implead petition with an intention
to delay the proceedings. He contended that the trial Court
erred in allowing the I.A., and relied on the judgment of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shashi Pal Vs. Desh Raj
and Others 1 whereunder, it was held that it is not in dispute
(2019) SCC OnLine HP 1717
SKS,J
that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for
impleadment of party in proceedings can be filed and allowed
at any stage during the pendency of proceedings. The same
can also be done during the pendency of appellate
proceedings, however, what has to be seen is that in case the
suit of a party stands dismissed by learned trial court, inter
alia, on the ground that the suit was bad for mis joinder of
necessary parties, then can said lacunae in the suit be
permitted to be filled up in appeal by way of an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC or not, without adjudication
on merit in the main appeal? As such, prayed the Court to
allow the revision petition, setting aside the order dated
11.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of
2016.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the appeal filed by respondent No.6
is in continuation with the suit filed by him vide O.S.No.608
of 2015. Further, the petition filed by respondent NOs.1 to 5
under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is also maintainable at the
appeal stage and as the respondent Nos.1 to 5 themselves
filed a petition and stated that they are necessary parties to
SKS,J
the suit, there is no illegality in the order dated 11.03.2022
passed in I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016.
Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition as the same
lacks merits.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the appeal filed by respondent No.6 is in continuation with
the suit and the perusal of averments would reveal that
respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are necessary parties but they
were not impleaded in the suit as a result of which the same
was dismissed. It is noted that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are
none other than the mother, sisters and brother of revision
petitioner. That apart, the judgment rendered in the case of
Shashi Pal (supra) with regard to filling up the lacunas does
not come to the aid of revision petitioner as the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 themselves filed a petition in the appeal stating
that they are necessary parties.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no illegality in the order dated 11.03.2022 passed in
I.A.No.2155 of 2019 in A.S.No.269 of 2016. There are no
SKS,J
merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to
dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: .03.2024
PT
