Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Racharla Thirupathi And Others vs Gundala Shobha Rani And Others on 24 July, 2013
Author: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.2303 of 2013 dated:24-7-2013 Racharla Thirupathi and others .. Petitioners Gundala Shobha Rani and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri P. Hari Prasad <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED : 1. AIR 1963 S.C. 786 2. 1995(3) SCC 147 3. (1992) 2 SCC 524 The Court made the following: ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14-3-2013 in I.A.No.1076/2012 in O.S.No.59/2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
The petitioners are third parties to the above mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect of Ac.2-20 cents of land in Survey.No.533/A2 of Bheemaram village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from interfering with the respondent No.1/plaintiff's possession over the property. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that she has purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of one Devadas and one Ranadheer Reddy under registered sale deed dated 4-4-2006. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1076/2012 in the said suit inter alia with the plea that their vendors have purchased the properties under registered sale deeds dated 31-12- 1998 from Bokka Devadas and that they have in turn sold the properties to the petitioners on different dates in 2009 and 2010. It is their further case that they were not aware of the filing and pendency of the above mentioned suit till date; that they have noticed a newspaper publication in Saakshi Telugu Daily on 1-11-2012 calling for objections for granting of construction permission in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit property and that immediately thereafter, they have filed the I.A. for their impleadment in the suit. Respondent No.1/plaintiff contested the said application by filing a counter- affidavit. By order dated 14-3-2013, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application.
The main ground on which the lower Court dismissed the petitioners' application for their impleadment in the suit is that they failed to specifically point out as to where their plots fall in Sy.No.532 or 533 and that as no relief has been claimed against the petitioners by respondent No.1/plaintiff, they are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the suit. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC confers discretion on the Court, either to strike out or add parties, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of any party. The main criterion for addition of parties is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Whether a person is a necessary or a proper party depends upon the nature of the dispute raised and the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar1, the Supreme Court has drawn a subtle distinction between a 'necessary' and a 'proper party'. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant portion of the Judgment, at para-7, hereunder :
" ... A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding."
The relief of injunction is personal against the person and those who claim through him. Such injunction orders therefore do not bind third parties. This is the reason why the Courts are generally loath to permit impleadment of parties in injunction suits. If a third party has any apprehension that he will be deprived of the property, he can always file a substantive suit against the person who in his opinion is likely to evict him in the guise of an order or decree for injunction. However, no law has been laid down in absolute terms that in an injunction suit, a third party cannot be impleaded. In Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra2, while dealing with the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Supreme Court held as under :
"The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. A person may be added as a party-defendant to the suit though no relief may be claimed against him/her provided his/her presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit. Such a person is only a proper party as distinguished from a necessary party." (Emphasis is mine) In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay3, the Apex Court held as under :
"If the intervener has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing action, the Court has power to join the intervener so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness." (Emphasis is mine) In the ultimate analysis, the Court is required to see whether the persons who claim to be impleaded have direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute and whether their presence would help the Court to finally and completely adjudicate the dispute.
In the instant case, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that they have purchased the plots carved out of Sy.No.532 and 533. The suit is filed in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.533/A2. For the mere fact that the petitioners did not specify as to in which of the two survey numbers their plots have fallen, they cannot be non-suited. This aspect needs to be necessarily adjudicated in the suit itself. Having regard to the averments on which the petitioners filed the application for their impleadment, it cannot be denied that they have direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. As to what extent they have interest and whether respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to the grant of injunction or not, need to be examined in the suit. Even if the petitioners are not necessary parties, surely, they are proper parties. Besides respondent No.1/plaintiff not suffering any distinct disadvantage due to the impleadment of the petitioners, the latter's impleadment in the suit would, indeed, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, in that, if the plaintiff succeeds in convincing the Court for granting a decree of injunction in the presence of the petitioners, such decree would bind the petitioners as well, obviating the necessity for the plaintiff to face separate civil proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioners if their application for impleadment is dismissed. On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners deserved to be impleaded as defendants in the suit.
For the above mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set-aside. I.A.No.1076/2012 is allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel to the disposal of the revision petition, CRPMP No.3023/2013, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 24-7-2013