Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Savarapu Venkateswarlu, Narsapur vs Bandela Sharon, E.G.Dist 4 Others on 26 October, 2024

APHC010480132017
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI             [3460]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)


           SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3653/2017

Between:

Savarapu Venkateswarlu, Narsapur                        ...PETITIONER

                                   AND

Bandela Sharon, East Godavari District & 4 Others   ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. BABUJI TENNETI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR

The Court made the following:
                                        2




            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
               CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3653 of 2017
ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 04.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.947 of 2015 in O.S.No.16 of 2015 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. The suit O.S.No.16 of 2015 is filed for permanent injunction against Respondent No.5. While so, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed I.A.No.947 of 2015 in O.S.No.16 of 2015 seeking to come on record as Defendants in the suit.

3. In the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.947 of 2015, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that an extent of Ac.2.31 cents in R.S.No.629/2 of Rustumbada, Narsapur originally belongs to their father i.e. late Bandela Mohan. It was contended that the marriage of late Bandela Mohan and the Respondent No.1 herein took place on 29.05.1980 at Antervedi Palem as per Christian customs and traditions. The Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are their children.

4. While so, late Bandela Mohan died intestate on 23.04.2014 leaving behind the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. After the death of late Bandela Mohan, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 partitioned the schedule property under the registered partition deed dated 12.09.2014 vide document No.3634/2014, SRO, Narsapur. As things stood so, the Respondent No.5 claiming to the wife of late Bandela Mohan brought into existence a GPA dated 10.10.2014 registered vide document No.4899/2014, SRO, Narsapur infavour of One Kodi Venkata Subbarao.

5. As there was threat over possession, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed O.S.No.250 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the Respondent No.5 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.1309 of 2014 for temporary injunction was filed and the same was allowed by the trial Court.

6. After the interim injunction was granted in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.250 of 2014, the Petitioner filed the present suit O.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur claiming to be lessee of the suit schedule property curiously against the Respondent No.5 alone.

7. In that context, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed application to implead them. The trial Court allowed the implead application taking into consideration the plea of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 after referring to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme between Anil Kumar Vs.Shivnath 1 . Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

8. Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

9. Admittedly, late Bandela Mohan is the owner of the schedule property. In the Counter Affidavit, there is no serious dispute to the fact that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Respondent No.1 and late Bandela Mohan. The only defense which was raised was that the suit is for permanent injunction, the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are not necessary parties to the suit. This Court is of the opinion that there is no bar to implead persons claiming to have right and interest in the scheduled property even in an injunction suit. Such an approach would mitigate the mischief and prevent Court processes from being abused.

1995(3) SCC 147 4

10. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Vs. The State of Maharashtra2, has held as follows:

"The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, which results in ineffective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non-interested persons/officials and then use it to assert rights of Plaintiff. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in dispute is effectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties. Merely because plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. If the Court feels it appropriate that any particular party's presence is necessary before the Court for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit, the Court has full power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to direct addition of such party to the suit."

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for devoid of merits. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J 26.10.2024 TPS 2 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392 5 83 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3653/2017 26.10.2024 TPS