Telangana High Court
W3 Hospitality Services Private ... vs Mr. Daggubati Ramanaidu on 8 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1706 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.03.2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in O.S.No.282 of 2020 on the file of the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. This application in I.A.No.81 of 2022 was filed by the proposed second plaintiff under Order-I Rule-10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to add him as second plaintiff in the original suit. The trial Court has allowed the said application and the proposed party was brought on to record as second plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
4. The original suit in OS No.282 of 2020 was filed by the plaintiff for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, Page 2 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 recovery of possession, mesne profits, injunction and damages against the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule property-plot No.2 with door bearing No.8-2- 293/82/F/A/2 admeasuring 1007 square yards in Survey No.403, Shaikpet village and Survey No.102/1, Hakimpet village, situated within the approved layout of Filmnagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Filmnagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, with precise boundaries as mentioned therein.
5. The defendants have filed written statement. Thereafter, the original plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A. No.166 of 2020 under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of CPC. That application was dismissed by the trial Court with an observation that the documentary evidence filed by the respondents shows that there is a dispute of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and it is ceased in the year 2018 itself by way of agreement of sale dated 29.11.2018 which is a disputed document. In such circumstances, the petition filed for Page 3 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits is not maintainable.
6. During pendency of the original suit, it appears that the plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of the proposed party on 13.12.2021 as per the registered sale deed document No.7819 of 2021. Accordingly, the proposed party has filed an application under Order-I Rule 10 (2) of CPC stating that he is entitled to continue the suit instituted by the original plaintiff and that the defendants in the original suit are liable to pay the rents to the plaintiff. This application was resisted by the second defendant. However, the trial Court has allowed the said application with an observation that the proposed party is necessary party to adjudicate the questions raised in the suit more effectively and completely being the subsequent purchaser.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ second defendant would contend that the proposed party is none other than the son of the plaintiff, though the suit schedule property was leased out in the year 2018, Page 4 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 subsequently parties have entered into an agreement of sale dated 03.11.2018 and the defendants have parted sufficient amount, out of Rs.18 crores an amount of Rs.3 crores was paid through cheques, but they were not encashed. While so, the present application is filed by the proposed party who is the son of the plaintiff and the trial Court has not considered all these aspects. It is further contended that the revision petitioner is entitled to protect his possession. The subsequent purchaser during pendency of the suit has no right to prosecute the suit. The trial Court has erroneously arrived at a conclusion that he is necessary party to the suit and relied on the principles laid in R. Kanthimathi Vs. Beatrice Xavier1.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the proposed party/second plaintiff contends that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs is closed in the original suit and the suit is being posted for defendants evidence and that during pendency of the suit, the second plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property, since the interest of subsequent 1 (2000) 9 SCC 339 Page 5 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 purchaser is also involved and the original plaintiff has not opposed the impleadment of the subsequent purchaser, there are no merits in the application and relied on the principles laid in Chandra Prakash Gupta Vs. Ganga Prasad2.
9. In R. Kanthimathi's case (1st supra) relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it was case wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant was in dispute and the landlord has repudiated the agreement by sending back the cheque to the tenant and the court has considered the conduct of the landlady right from the date of entering into the agreement of sale and arrived at a conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not subsisting to hold that the tenant is a willful defaulter.
10. In Chandra Prakash Gupta's case (2nd supra), relied by the leaned counsel for the respondents, a learned single judge of Patna High Court while relying on the principles in Khan Bahadur C.B. Taraporwala and another 2 1991 Law Suit (Pat) 219 Page 6 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 Vs. Kazim Ali Pasha and others held that the applications for addition of transferees pendent lite is maintainable both under Order-I, Rule-10 (a) and Order XXII, Rule-10 of CPC for the simple reason that if the suit is decreed in terms of the relief claimed by the plaintiff, then the interest of the transferee pendente lite is bound to be adversely affected.
11. Therefore, in that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the principles laid in the decision relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case on hand in respect of an application filed under Order-I Rule 10 (2) CPC by the subsequent purchaser. More so when there is no clash or conflict of interest between the plaintiff No.1 and the proposed party, the plaintiff No.2 whose interest is likely to be affected cannot be denied of an opportunity of hearing. In that view of the matter, for all the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Further, with the impleadment of proposed party as second plaintiff, no prejudice would cause to the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 as the Page 7 of 7 AVR,J CRP No.1706 of 2022 transferee pendente lite/proposed second plaintiff is bound by the result of the suit and the trial is in progress.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned in its entirety. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Date: 08.12.2022 Isn