Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Achanta Seetharamayya vs Bhamidipati Gopalakrishna Murthy And ... on 24 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(1)ALT402
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. These four Revision Petitions arise out of a common order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, East Godavari district at Rajahmundry in I.A. Nos. 450/91 in O.S. No. 4/89; 449/91 in O.S. No. 88/88, 151/91 in O.S. No. 5/89 and 452/91 in O.S. No. 6/89 respectively. Since the question involved in these revision petitions is one and the same, they are of by common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Bhamidipati Gopalakrishna Murthy, plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 and 1st defendant in O.S. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989 (one of the respondents in the revision petitions), is said to have entered into an agreement of sale, which is the subject-matter of suits, on 9-1-1983 with the revision petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 95,000/-. Prior to the agreement, the said Gopalakrishna Murthy is said to have entered into an agreement of sale on 9-5-1976 in respect of the same property with the defendants in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 for a consideration of Rs. 18,500/-. Since the defendants in those two suits failed to pay the balance sale consideration of the agreement dated 9-5-1976 within the stipulated time of four months as was agreed, Gopalakrishna Murthy instituted O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 seeking delivery and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property while O.S. Nos. 5/89 and 6/89 were instituted by the defendants in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 against Gopalakrishna Murthy and others for specific performance of the agreement dated 9-5-1976. In the agreement dated 9-1-1983 entered into between the revision petitioner and Gopalakrishna Murthy, it was agreed that the latter would initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the defendants in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 and on succeeding in the litigation, the property would be sold to the revision petitioner. There was also an understanding between both of them that the revision petitioner would meet the litigation expenditure. As per the agreement dated 9-1-1983, the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to Gopalakrishna Murthy as advance. He also paid a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Gopalakrishna Murthy on 19-4-1983 enabling him to initiate legal proceedings as stated supra.
3. It is stated that all the four suits - O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4 to 6 of 1989 - are coming up for joint trial before the Court of the II Additional District judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The revision petitioner initially believed that Gopalakrishna Murthy was seriously contesting the matters, but on knowing that he was surreptitiously intending to compromise the matter with the defendants in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 (plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989), defeating the interest of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner filed LA. Nos. 449 to 452 of 1991 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading him as one of the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 and one of the defendants in O.S. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989. The said petitions were opposed by the rival parties on the ground that the revision petitioner had no locus standi for getting himself impleaded in the suits since he had the knowledge of the agreement dated 9-5-1976, entered into between Gopalakrishna Murthy and the defendants in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89, which was prior to the agreement dated 9-1-1983. The stand taken by the revision petitioner before the Court below was that in order to safeguard his interest, it was just and necessary for him to come on record as plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 and defendant in O.S. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989.
4. The Court below rejected the request of the revision petitioner for the reason that his cause of action was not only entirely different, but also presently an unborn one inasmuch as his right to enforce the agreement dated 9-1-1983 was premature and contingent upon a future event viz., the success of the promissor in all the above four suits and that if at all he had any case, he has to agitate in a different suit. The Court below further held that a third party cannot be permitted to force himself upon the existing parties with altogether a different cause of action. It is this order which is impugned in these revision petitions.
5. Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Court below has erroneously come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has no interest in the suits to come on record as plaintiff in OS. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 and defendant in OS. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989. It is further contended that the observation of the Court below that when the parties to the suit are on the verge of entering into a compromise, the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to come on record thwarting such compromise proceedings, would invariably go to show that the Court below has not properly appreciated the issues raised by the revision petitioner. He also contended that when a party has a direct interest in the litigation, Courts should not deny such party opportunity to safeguard his/her interest. Therefore, the order of the Court below, it is contended, has to be set aside.
6. Sri M.S.K. Sastry, learned Counsel representing Sri Nagesh, appearing for the contensting respondent, has contended inter alia that the observations of the Court below are just, proper and reasonable, which cannot be interfered with. He further contended that since the Court below has pointed out that the revision petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by way of a separate suit, he cannot come on record in the suits pending before the Court below. If the revision petitioner is allowed to come on record, the cause of action as well as the nature of the suits would change. Therefore, he contends, the petitioner cannot be allowed to come on record either as plaintiff or defendant in the suits.
7. Saila Bala v. Nirmala Sundari, the Supreme Court, considering the implications of Order 1 Rule 10 and Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, held:
"It is obvious that there are several substantial questions arising for determination in which the appellant as purchaser of the properties is vitally interested. As a purchaser pendente lite, she will be bound by the proceedings taken by the first respondent in execution of her decree, and justice requires that she would be given an opportunity to protect her rights."
8. What is flown from the decision of the Supreme Court is that justice requires that a party should be given an opportunity to protect his/her rights. In the instant case, the revision petitioner, who entered into an agreement with Gopalakrishna Murthy, whose properties are subject-matter of the suits, had paid substantial amount as advance towards the litigation expenditure. The anxiety of the petitioner to come on record is very much clear from the fact that the parties in the above suits before the Court below have come to an understanding to compromise the litigation. That is why, the revision petitioner apprehended that if the parties compromised, his interest would be defeated. Therefore, he sought to come on record. What is to be seen in a case of this nature is whether such a party has got direct interest in the said litigation. If a party shows to the Court that it has direct interest, it should not be prevented from coming on record to defend his/her interest.
9. In Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, the Supreme Court dealing with the question of addition of parties (at para 8) held:
"It is no use multiplying, references bearing on the construction of the relevant rule of the Code, relating to addition of parties. Each case has to be determined on its own facts.......in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property."
10. Thus, it is clear that if a party shows that it has direct interest in the litigation, it cannot be prevented from coming on record to safeguard his/her interest. In the instant case, admittedly the revision petitioner had entered into an agreement in the year 1983 for purchase of the suit schedule properties for a consideration of Rs.95,000/-. Initially he paid to Gopalakrishna Murhty a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for meeting the litigation expenditure. When the revision petitioner came to know that Gopalakrishna Murthy was clandestinely entering into a compromise with the opposite party, he filed applications for impleading him as a party along with Gopalakrishna Murthy in the above suits. In my considered view, the revision petitioner has got interest in the litigation. Therefore, he cannot be prevented from coming on record on the ground that he has got effective alternative remedy by way of a separate suit.
11. In P. R. Nallathambi v. V. Raghavan, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealing with the contingencies arising out of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code held:
"....... persons, whose interest would be affected by the result of the litigation, would be entitled to come on record to protect their interests in the further prosecution of the litigation, especially when their complaint is that the party already on record in a representative character is either not taking necessary and proper steps in the further prosecution of the proceedings or threatens to do something which would jeopardise their interests. Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. specially enables a party so represented, if he so desires, to come on record. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that a party who is bound by the result of a litigation, though not eo nomine a party to the litigation, shall be denied an opportunity to draw the attention of the Court to some step, which seeks to prejudice his interests behind his back. In all such cases, it is the plain duty of the Court to implead the parties concerned either under Order 1, Rule 10, or in exercise of its undoubted innerent power under Section 151, C.P. C."
12. What has to be drawn from the above observation is that if the parties, who are already on record are working against the interest of a person, such person is entitled to come on record. If the petitioner is denied of the opportunity of coming on record as one of the plaintiffs in the suits filed by Gopalakrishna Murthy and one of the defendants in the suits filed by others on the basis of agreement dated 9-1-1983, I have no reasons to disbelieve, the fact that he would suffer irreparable loss. On a perusal of the docket proceedings of the Court below, it is quite evident that the parties to the suits sought time on 13-6-1991 for compromising the matter and accordingly the matters stood posted to 25-6-1991 for compromise. This fact strengthens the apprehension of the revision petitioner that the parties to the suits are clandestinely entering into a compromise defeating his interest. When the matters came up on 25-6-1991, the revision petitioner filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sections 94 and 151 CPC for impleading him as one of the parties in the suits pending in order to safeguard his interest.
13. Since there is no diversity of interest between the revision petitioner and Gopalakrishna Murthy, whose ultimate aim is to succeed in the litigation and sell the properties to the revision petitioner in terms of the agreement dated 9-1-1983, I do not see any ground to deny the revision petitioner to have the opportunity of coming on record.
14. In view of the above discussion. I hold that the revision petitioner is entitled to come on record as plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 88/88 and 4/89 filed by Bhamidapati Gopalakrishna Murthy and as defendant in O.S. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989 filed by others. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside.
15. The revision petitions are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.