The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NO.1 to 5 lA NO: I OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that ln the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in O,S.No-947 of 2012 on the file of the ll Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Warangal pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsei for the Petitioners : SRl. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR. A. SRINIVAS COUNSEL REPRESENTING MR. C.V.L.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 124O of2Ol9 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order, dated 25.O1.2019 passed in LA.No.583 of 2018 in O.S.No.947 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned ll Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, wherein the application filed under Order I Rule 1O (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the petitioner therein as defendant No.7 was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petltloner filed O.S.No .947 of 2O 12 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their followers and agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession ald ownership of the revision petitioner over suit schedule property and also restraining defendant Nos l to 5 therein from alienating arrd executing the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 therein. During pendency of the said suit, an I.A.No.583 of 20 18 u'hich is the subject matter of the present revision is filed by respondent No' t herein to 2 implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit and for consequential amendment of the plaint. It is stated in the afhdavit filed in support of the petition that initially the suit schedule pr, 'pertt. rvas purchased by the revision petitioner along u,ith one IVIr. Chenda Manohar and respondent No.1 herein from Bandaru Venkateshwarlu and others. Further there u-as an oral agreement ald mutual understanding bets'een thenr u,hich is agreed to abide by them and inspite of purcl-rasing tl-re sard property by all of them the sale deeds *'ere registercd in re name of Mr. chenda Manohar and the revision pctitioner. The revision petitioner and Mr. Chenda Marlohar sold a,,,va-r. the said lands and the revision petitioner, rcspondent No. i ar-r d Mr.Chenda Manohar have apportioned the szrle proceedings without any disturbances. It is further s[ated thar there rvere negotiations and the said negotiations rvere reduced in u,riting and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 signed on the said document and in furtherar-rce of the said document, another document was also executed on 28.02.2012 . It is further stated that in the panchayath, rvhich ,,r-as held on 2a.O2.2OLZ, decided that out of Ac.16.05 gunras, the revision petitioner and Mr.Chenda ( 3 Manohar has sold away the land to an extent of Acs.1O.O0gts., to Bhavathi Educational Society and the remaining land to an extent of Acs.6.05gts. is available at that time and as such, it is decided cha; Lris revision petitioner is entitled to two shares i-e., Acs.4.O3 guntas and respondent No.1 is entitled to one share i.e., Ac.2.O2 guntas' It is further stated that the revision petitioner, without giving any information arrd knowledge of respondent No.1, had sold arvay the land to an extent of Ac.2-25 gts., in Sy.No' 125/2 including property of the petitioner to Suchitra To'"vnship through registered sale deed bearing document No'360i of 2017, d.ated 17.Og.2Ol7. It is further stated that the revision petitioner had sold away excess land Ac-2.O2 gts , in S-v.No.124/2 which is belong to the petitioner, therefore, he prayed to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit'

3. The revision petitioner, who is the plarntiff in the suit, frled counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the suit is frled for permanent injunction against defendant Nos. I to 6 over the suit schedule land in 51,.No.124 12 to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., of Thimmapur Vitlage, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Distlict from Mr' \ \ 4 Bandaru !'enkateshu'allu under agreement of Sale_cum_GpA vide document No.39t7 of 2O08, dated 30.07.2008 but respondent No.1 herein created a false story and intending to come on lecc-'d .rithout a_ny basis anci prayed to dismiss the peti tion.

4. Havir-rg penrsed the entire materia-l on record, the learned trial Court concluded that to avoid multiplicity of litigation in rhe proccedings and there is prima facie evidence that there is a Iis pendirrg betu,een the revision petitioner and respondenr No. I here in and no prejudice sha_ll caused to the other partv and allorr ed the application.

5. Aggrieved b-r. thc same, the present Civil Revision Petition is liled b,v the respondent_plaintiff contending that the learned Judg<: u.ithout seeing the pa_rameters of Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C had aLlowed the petition ald the learned Judge ouvht to have dismissed the application on the sole ground rhat the petirioner in I.A. has nothing to do with the suit sched ule propert). as he failed to file a scrap of paper to shou that he has interest, right and title over the property ( 5 and prayed to dismiss the petition by allowing the revision petition.

6. Having heard Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel rc,r the petitioner and Mr. A. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mr.C.V.L.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material placed on record, the points that arise for the consideration before this Court are: (i) Whether the petitioner is a proper arrd necessary party to come on record as defendant No.7? (ii) Whether the learned Judge has committed any error in allou.ing the application, if so, to what relieP POINT Nos. l and 2:- 1) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 had submitted that he had filed certain documents before the trial Court as well as this Court to prove his case that he is necessary party to come on record in the suit. 2) Coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the present suit lr,as filed by the revision petitioner against the respcndent Nos.2 to 6 herein seeking a relief cf permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their- follorvers and agents etc. from interlering wiih the peaceful possession artd orvnershit. c :he revision petitioner over suit schedule propertl. and also restraining defendant Nos.l to 5 therein from alienating and executing the registered sale Ceed in favour of detendant No.6 therein. 7 . It is pertinen t to mention that though the learned counsel fcr respondent No.l herein has vehemently argued ancl contended that the revision petitioner has sold away the propert)- r,hich onginall-r agreed to be registered in favour of responclent No. t hereirr as per the parchayat nhich rvas held on 28.02.20 17, u herein rt ,.\.as decided and that the revision petitioner and Mr. Chenda Manohar have already sold the land to an e.\tent of Acs. I O.O0 gts., out of Ac.16.05 gts arrd Ac.6.O5 gts rs strll available and it is aiso decided that the revision petitioner is entitled to two shares and respondent No. t herein is entitled to one share i.e., Ac.2.O2 gts., in Sy.No. 12a/2. It is aiso agreed that the revision petitioner has to register the lald ro an extent of Ac.2.O2 gts., in favour cf respondent No.1 herein i.e., proposed defendant though the 7 sarne was denied by the ccunsel for the revision petitioner herein on the ground that it is false story which was created by respondent No.1 and frled a petition under Order I Rule l0 of C.P.C.

8. It is contended by the Iearned counsel for the revision petitioner that respondent No.1 herein is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit as the suit was hled seeking a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants therein which is in personam in the nature and that it is not the case of the defendants therein that they have an_y grievance against the revision petitioner. g. As seen lrom the record that the case of respondent No.1 to get himself impleaded in the suit was purely basing on an understanding and agreements or in the form of award of panchayath alleged to have taken place wherein it was decided that Ac.2.O2 gts., of land will be registered in favour of respondent No.1. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1 had already approached the Court of law by {iling a suit for declaration agitating his rights pursuant to the said agreement and the apportionr4ent decided in the panchayat- 8 In the present suit the rights of respondent No.I herein cannot be affected, therefore, he is not a necessa-ry party to the said suit. It is pertinent to merition here that in a suit Itled for injunction the plaintiff, being a do:.iilit_is ritis and being master of his ow,n case, ma,\. choose the persons against whom he intend to seek any relief, which is also supported by the Judgment of the Hcn'trle Suprerrre Court in Dhannalal u. Kalautatibai and otherst rl,herein the Apex Court in paragraph No.23 held as under:- "23. The plaintiff is dornlnus Utis, that is, master of, or having domin ion ovcr, the casc. He is the ocrson, who has carriage and control of an action. In case of conflict of julisdiction rhe choicc ought to be with the plaintiff to chccsc the fcrum best suitecl to liim unless there be a r-rrle of larn. excluding access to a forum of the plaintitfs choice or permitting recourse lo a forum will be opposed to public policv or will be an abuse of the process of larv. " ' 12ooz1 6 scc ro 9

10. In Mumbai Internationzl AirporA Prioate Limited u' Regencg Conuention Centre and Hotels Prioate Limited and others2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a Person against whom he does not seek any relief' Consequently, a person w'ho is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintitf. But this general rule is subject to the provisions ol Order 1 Rule 1O(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (" the Code ' , for short) , which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties' The said sub-rule is extracted below: ' 10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties'--The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just' order that the name o[ any party improperly joined' whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, u'hether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessa4/ in order to enable the court effectuatly and completely to ' (zoro) z scc atz 10 adjudicate u1>on and settle all the questions involved in the suit, bc added.,' 1 4. The said provision makes it clear thar a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (irrcluding suits for specific performancc), either upon or evelt._vitirout any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any ol the following persons may be addecl as a parry: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintifl or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completety adjudicate upon and settle the questions involvcd in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a part\, any person u'ho is found to be a neccssary partv or proper party. 15 A "necessary part)," is a pcrsorl t,ho ouqht to have been joined as a party and in u,hose absence effective decree could be passecl at all by. the court If a "necessary party,' is not impleaded, the suit irself is liable to be dismissed. A ',proper party,, is a parry who, though not a necessar_v party, is a person ir,hose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequatety adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found ro be a propcr or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishcs oi the ptaintiif. The r 11 fact that a person is likelv to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a recessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance."

11. ln Gouind Sinal Orti since d,eceased, through his heirs and legal representatiaes u. Gouind Uso Bhobe and others3 the High Court o[ Bombay held as under:- It is weil settled that the plaintiff is the master of the suit and it is for the plaintiff to chose as to nho should be joined as parties to the suit in order to succeed in obtaining the relief prayed for by him or her in the suit. In case of failure on the part of the plaintiff to jorn the necessar5r party, it is the plaintiff who is bound to sufler for his fault, but that cannot justify the defendants to insist upon the joinder of arly party of the choice of the defendant."

12. In the present case as respondent No.1 not made out any justihcation for joining him as party i.e., as defendant ' 1998 scc online Bom.40\ t2 No.7 merel-v on the ground that he had some rights over the suit schedule property that too basing on the agreement or arvard ol the panchayath a-nd the decisions of the nanchavathdars and even otherwise no rights of :e. pcn.lent No. t herein would be adjudicated in the present suit more particularlv in a suit of permanent injunction. Although in a sui," of permanent injunction, title can be gone into incidentall-v-, but no title c?rn be decided in the suit of permanent injunction except lbr the sake of c onsidcring the three cardinal principles pirna iacie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, nothing can be looked into. In the present case as respondent No.1 seeking to ascertain his rights over the suit schedule propertv u.hich cannot be decided in the suit of permanent injunction even if he is made as a party to the suit. It only amounts to enlarging the scope of the suiL which is impermissible and as such, the findings given by the learned Judge appears to be rvithout proper application of law, as such, the same deserves tc be set aside arrd for the said reasons, the said points are ansr.vered accordingly in favour of the revision petitioner against respondent No.l . ( ?,/

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 25.O1.2019 passed 1n I.A.No.583 of 2Ol8 in O.S.No.947 of 2Ol2 on the f-rle of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. There shall be no order.as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand dismissed. SO/.B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,/ ,e0il,'i:TJY",l'Jd$iiiiffi"5 o'""r '" i b}E 4- Two CD CoPies . + Spare coPY @rot'"t'A HIGH COURT DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1240 ot 2019 T i{E STr{, t o o 2 3 t'il.q ?illfr t S o ) |.i )ry' .i- ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \p A