Telangana High Court
Smt. D.Jayaprada vs D.Pratap Reddy on 23 July, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1735 of 2023
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 05.06.2023 in I.A.No.615 of 2022 in A.S. No.09 of 2020 passed by the Principal District Judge Vikarabad District.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application filed seeking to come on record as respondent No. 9 in the Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.9 of 2020.
3. The respondent No.1 herein filed the above appeal vide A.S.No.9 of 2020 against the Judgment in the suit vide O.S. No.51 of 2007 filed by respondent No.2 herein for partition and separate possession under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC').
4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 615 of 2022 in A.S. No.9 of 2020 under Order I Rule 9 & 10(2) CPC seeking permission to implead himself as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit. The said application was 2 filed on the ground that he is anecessary and proper party to the appeal suit for effective adjudication of the matter.
5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application holding that the petitioner herein, need not be impleaded in above appeal suit. The trial Court observed that in the judgment and decree in O.S. No.51 of 2007 dated 15.06.2020, there is no whisper with regard to the alleged agreement of transfer dated 08.11.1984 stated to have been executed by her mother-in- law in her favor based on which the petitioner herein is claiming to be absolute owner.
6. Further, the Court below held that the petitioner herein ought to have filed a separate suit seeking declaration in pursuance of the agreement of transfer vide 08.11.1984 instead of seeking to be impleaded by filing the underlying interlocutory application in the appeal suit, when the relief sought for in the above suit is for partition and separate possession which is already decreed.
7. The trial Court also observed that, the petitioner herein except claiming under the alleged agreement of transfer, has failed to produce any document to prove her continuous possession and to 3 show her name having been mutated in the revenue records and held that the petitioner herein is not required for deciding the above appeal suit.
8. The trial Court held that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the relevance or necessity of her role or requirement in determining the issues in A.S. No.9 of 2020. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the petitioner could not be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit i.e. A.S. No.9 of 2020, as her addition was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter.
9. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 05.06.2023 the petitioner herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
10. Heard Sri C. Hanumantha Rao learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yadaiah Barrisetty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1; Sri Venkata Mayur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and perused the record.
11.The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 9 and 10(2) CPC by not impleading the petitioner as respondent No.9 in the above appeal suit, despite being necessary 4 party to the said appeal suit; that she is entitled and has exclusive right, title, interest in respect of the lands covered in the agreement of transfer; and that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the agreement of transfer is in between the family members and no other record is necessary to produce before the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner herein had acquired interest in the above appeal suit, and therefore her presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the appeal suit; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying the settled legal principles regarding impleadment.
12. Per contra, the respondents herein contend that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of merit, as the proposed respondent No.9, i.e., petitioner herein allegedly created the agreement of transfer and failed to show any relevance on her part as necessary party to the appeal suit; and that her impleadment is not essential for effective adjudication. Thus, the application filed for lack of bona fides and is liable to be dismissed.
13. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein is seeking to be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit vide A.S No.9 of 5 2020 claiming that the suit scheduled properties are transferred in her favour on the basis of the said agreement of transfer dated 08.11.1984 executed by her mother-in-law. However, as rightly held by the trial Court, the petitioner ought to have filed a separate suit seeking declaration to declare the petitioner as absolute owner and possession in pursuance of the agreement of transfer dated 08.11.1984, as the validity of the said agreement of transfer has to be decided through separate proceedings by adducing evidence.
15. Further, it is settled law that if any third party to the suit has any apprehension that he/she will be deprived of the property, he/she can always file a separate suit against person (See: Akshara Brahma Mines and Development and Ors. vs. Kampa Hanoku and Ors 1).
16.The Crucial test for impleading any party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, is whether presence of such party is necessary or proper without whom there can be no effect or final adjudication of 1MANU/AP/0753/2023 6 all the issues involved in the suit with regard to the same subject matter.
17. As per the doctrine of dominus litis the plaintiffs in the suit have the exclusive rights to decide against whom the suit is instituted and cannot be compelled to include a party against whom no relief is sought. Since, the petitioner/proposed respondent No.9 has not claimed any relief in the suit, she do not satisfy the criteria of being necessary or proper party for her to be impleaded in the appeal suit by the Court below.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors2 has held as under:
12. ....the scope and ambit of Order 1 of Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary 2 MANU/SC/0427/2010 7 party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. This Court in Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import MANU/SC/0502/1980 :
1981 (1) SCC 80 reiterated the classic definition of 'discretion' by Lord Mansfield in R. v. Wilkes 1770 (98) ER 327 that 'discretion' when applied to courts of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, 'but legal and regular'. We may now give some illustrations regarding exercise of discretion under the said Sub-Rule.
12.1) ***** 12.2) ***** 12.3) If a person makes an application for being impleaded contending that he is a necessary party, and if the court finds that he is a necessary party, it can implead him. If the plaintiff opposes such impleadment, then instead of impleading such a party, who is found to be a necessary party, the court may proceed to dismiss the suit by holding that the applicant was a necessary party and in his absence the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit. 12.4) *****
19. It is further to be noted that the proposed respondent No.9 has failed to demonstrate any proprietary right, title, or legal interest in the subject property that would justify her impleadment as party to the above appeal suit. The mere filing of an interlocutory application seeking to be added as defendants in an appeal against the suit primarily instituted for partition and separate possession, cannot be sustained without establishing any legal basis. 8
20. In view of the above, the revision petitioner herein cannot be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit under Order I Rule 9 &10(2) CPC filed for seeking partition and separate possession on the basis of an agreement of transfer, considering that she ought to have filed separate suit to seek redressal of her grievance before the competent Court of jurisdiction; that the main suit vide O.S. No.51 of 2007 having been already decreed wherein the petitioner herein was not a party to the said suit, this Court is of the view that, the petitioner herein does not qualify as necessary party for the effective adjudication of the issues in O.S. No.51 of 2007 which is pending consideration in Appeal vide A.S. No.9 of 2020.
21. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellate Court has rightly held that the impleadment of petitioner/proposed respondent No.9 is not substantial or necessary party in the appeal suit.
22. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9
23. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The order dated 05.06.2023 in I.A. No.615 of 2022 in A.S. No.9 of 2020is sustained. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 23.07.2025 VSV/MRKR