Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Addanki Venkateswara Rao vs Jaddu Narasimha Rao on 15 November, 2024
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010285692024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3239]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1447/2024
Between:
Addanki Venkateswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Jaddu Narasimha Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PECHATHY RANGA RAO
2.
The Court made the following Order:
Questioning the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol in I.A.No.1709 of 2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2017 dated 27.02.2024, the plaintiff and the proposed plaintiff No.2 filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner petitioners as well learned counsel for the respondents.
2
3. The 2nd petitioner/proposed plaintiff filed the present I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17, and Section 151 of CPC to add him as the 2nd plaintiff in the above suit.
4. The 1st plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
5. It is the contention of the 2nd petitioner/proposed plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff sold the suit schedule property to the proposed 2nd plaintiff under a registered sale deed on 31.07.2018 and as such he is necessary and proper party to the plaint, as he purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st plaintiff. Instead of filing a separate suit, the proposed 2nd plaintiff wanted to come on record to avoid the multiplicity of the suits. Even, according to the proposed 2 nd plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused by adding him as a 2nd plaintiff in the present suit. It is only to avoid the multiplicity of suits he wanted to come on record as 2nd plaintiff. Having sold the property by the 1st plaintiff in favour of the proposed 2nd plaintiff, the former will not have any interest in prosecuting the suit, which is only for that reason the proposed 2nd plaintiff wanted to come on record but the learned Judge dismissed the I.A. without considering the same. He further contends that the present suit was filed in the year 2017, which is ripe for trial and he will co-operate with the trial Court for speedy disposal of the suit.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not seriously dispute the factual position.
3
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol in I.A.No.1709 of 2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2017 dated 27.02.2024 is set aside and I.A.No.1709 of 2019 is allowed. The proposed 2nd plaintiff is impleaded as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. He is directed to file his affidavit and necessary pleadings within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents/defendants are also directed to file their written statements, if they choose to, within a period of one (01) month thereafter. After pleadings are completed, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY 15.11.2024 PNS