Telangana High Court
M/S Sneha Farms Private Limited vs Mr. Aduru Rajendra Prasad on 8 November, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2948 of 2024
ORDER:
The present is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner /
plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking
supervisory Writ jurisdiction of this Court while assailing the order dated
22.07.2024 in I.A.No.546 of 2023 in O.S.No.259 of 2019 passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. K.Jaya Bharath Reddy, learned counsel representing
Ms. Mareddy Nikitha, learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff and
Mr. M.Major Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant
No.6.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had allowed the petition
filed under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC whereby the
proposed defendant No.6 was permitted to be impleaded as defendant
No.6 in the Original Suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff i.e. O.S.No.2259
of 2019.
4. The Original Suit is a Suit for perpetual injunction against the
defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the petitioner / plaintiff over the Suit schedule property. The claim of
the petitioner / plaintiff is on the basis of a registered sale deed that was
executed in the year 2019 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.20
guntas in Survey No.13 and land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey
No.13/E total admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village,
Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram
Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Pending the Suit, the respondent No.6 who is the proposed
defendant No.6, has moved I.A.No.546 of 2023 seeking his impleadment
as a necessary party in the Suit. The contention of the proposed
defendant No.6 was on the ground of the interference of the petitioner /
plaintiff in the property which is owned by him so far as land situated in
Plot No.51, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, or 418 Square meters in Survey
Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur
Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District. According to the proposed defendant No.6, he had
purchased the property from his vendor by way of an Agreement of Sale-
cum-GPA executed on 21.11.2019 vide registration No.13131 of 2019
with a further rectification deed which was also registered vide document
bearing No.13515 of 2019 dated 04.12.2019 and subsequently the
registered sale deed got executed on 15.07.2021.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing on either side, the Trial
Court allowed the aforesaid I.A.No.546 of 2023 by permitting the
proposed defendant to be added as defendant No.6 in the Original Suit,
which is under challenge in the present Revision Petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff strongly contended
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the proposed
defendant No.6 if at all had any grievance; he ought to have filed a
separate Suit against the petitioner / plaintiff. That he cannot be joined
as a necessary party in the Suit for perpetual injunction that the
petitioner / plaintiff has filed against the original respondents in the Suit.
8. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner /
plaintiff that in the capacity of a dominus litis it was the petitioner /
plaintiff's prerogative to decide who should be the defendants and against
whom the relief has to be sought. It was categorically submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that the property which is
claimed by defendant No.6 to be that which is reflected in Survey Nos. 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village,
Batasingram Gram Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, are not connected to the Suit schedule property in the
present case and therefore the petitioner / plaintiff's Suit is concerned he
is confining it so far as the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey
No.13 and land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.13/E total
admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village, Abdullapurmet
Revenue Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram Panchayath, Ranga Reddy
District and not in any other Survey.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff relied upon the
following judgments of various High Courts on petitions filed under Order
I Rule 10 of CPC and contended that proposed defendant No.6, as such,
was not a necessary party and impleadment of the said defendant is
therefore bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside.
1. B. Adeppa Naidu vs. Sri Swamy Hathiramjee and 3 Others 1
2. Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others 2
3. Kamakula Okkaliyar (Kappu) Mahajana Sangam, through its
President vs. Palaniammal 3
4. M. Thangarasu vs. M. Punithavathi 4
5. V.O. Duraisamy Mudaliar (Deceased) vs. Parijathammal (Died) 5
6. Sri B. Chandrashekar vs. Sri M. Premanand Kamath 6
7. Sm.Laxmi Suresh vs. Sri Aduikesava Perumal Peyalwar 7
Order dated 4171 of 2016 in C.R.P.No.4171 of 2016
of High Court for the State of Telangana
(2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352
Order dated 22.01.2020 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1037 of 2019
of Madras High Court
Order dated 17.04.2024 in C.R.P. Nos.3081 and 3721 of 2022
of Madras High Court
Order dated 04.01.2016 in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.1245 & 1246 of 2012
of Madras High Court
Order dated 14.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.7283 of 2024
of High Court of Karnakata
Order dated 21.04.2010 in C.R.P.(PD) No.703 of 2009 and
M.P.No.1 of 2009 of Madras High Court
10. There is a categorical contention put forth by learned counsel for
respondent / defendant No.6 that he is in exclusive possession and
ownership of the property in Survey Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A,
12/O and 12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram
Panchayat, Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
It is his further contention that part of the Suit schedule property is his
property where he has ownership right and neither the petitioner /
plaintiff nor the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have got any claim or interest over
the said property and if at all the Suit is decided without he being made a
necessary party, his interest shall be adversely affected. It was in this
context that the Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Order I Rule
10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff at this juncture
submits that from the pleadings of proposed defendant No.6 it reflects
that he appears to be a subsequent purchaser from one of the defendants
in the Suit filed by the petitioner / plaintiff and therefore he cannot be
permitted now to step into the shoes of the defendants and contest the
case as has been decided in the judgments relied upon by him.
12. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, undoubtedly the petitioner / plaintiff is claiming the
relief in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.13 and
land admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.13/E total admeasuring
Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Piglipur Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue
Mandal under BBatasingaram Gram Panchayath, Ranga Reddy District,
so also the proposed defendant No.6 in the Original Suit is also claiming
title over the land bearing Plot No.51, admeasuring 500 Sq. yards, or 418
Square meters in Survey Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and
12/12E situated at Piglipur Village, Batasingram Gram Panchayat,
Abdullapurmet, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It appears that
the Suit schedule property and the property which is claimed by
proposed defendant No.6 are interlinked to some extent.
13. In the given circumstances if the defendant No.6 is permitted to be
added as a necessary party to the Suit, the question would be whether
any prejudice would be caused to the interest of the petitioner / plaintiff
or not?
14. The petitioner / plaintiff is claiming his right, title and injunction in
respect of the property that situates at Survey No.13 and Survey
No.13/E. The defendant No.6's claim is right over the property that
situates in Survey Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12/A, 12/1A, 12/O and 12/12E. If
the two properties are entirely different, then this Court is of the
considered opinion that no prejudice as such would be caused to the
interest of the petitioner / plaintiff as also to the interest of the proposed
defendant No.6 while deciding the Suit on merits. On the contrary, if the
property happens to be the same or is adjoining or connected or
overlapping, if the proposed defendant No.6 is not made a party and the
Suit is permitted to be decided and in the process if any relief is obtained
by the petitioner / plaintiff which has an adverse impact on the right and
title over defendant No.6; the same may give rise to multiplicity of further
litigations and further complications as well. In order to avoid such a
situation, if the proposed defendant No.6 is permitted to be added as has
been ordered by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any prejudice
detrimental to the interest of the petitioner / plaintiff being caused.
15. So far as the judgments that have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff are concerned, this Court has no
hesitation in accepting the proposition of law laid down. But a careful
reading of the factual backdrop in which the Suits were filed even if it
were for perpetual injunction, it would clearly reflect that the proposed
defendants were not directly associated with the Suit or the Suit
schedule property unlike in the present case. Therefore, those judgments
are distinguishable on facts itself.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong
case made out by the petitioner / plaintiff calling for an interference to
the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No.546 of 2023 in
O.S.No.259 of 2019 passed by the Trial Court. The present Revision
Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 08.11.2024
GSD
