The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in A.S.No. I of 2020. on the file of the Colrt of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. C Hanumantha Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Yadaiah Barrisetty Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Venkata Mayur The Court made the following: ORDER THII IION'BLIi SRI.JIJSTICIi T. VIn*OD KUI\IAR CIVf L ItEVISION PETITION No. 1735 of 2023 otil)Elt: 1'he present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against thc ordel dated 05.06.2023 in I.A.No.61 5 of 2022 in A.S. No.09 ol 2020 passc-d by the Principal District Judge Vikarabad District

2. 'l he revision petitioner herein is the petitioncr in thc tunclc.rlying interlocr-rtory application filed seeking to come on rcccrrcl irs respondent No. 9 in the Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.9 of l0l0

3. l lre respor.rdent No. I herein filed the above appeal vide z\.S.No.9 ol 2020 against the Judgment in the suit vide O.S. No.5l ol'10(J7 ti lc'd bl rcsporrdent No.2 herein fol partition and separate posscssion under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Code of Civil Proccclu re (lor short 'CPC'). ,1. 'l-he petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory alrplication vitle I.A. No. 615 of 2022 in A.S. No.9 of 2020 under Order I Rulc 9 & 10(2) CPC seeking permission to irnplead l.rin.rscll' as rcspondent No.!) in thc appeal suit. Thc said application u,as 2 i filed on the ground that he is anecessary and proper pafty to the appeal suit lor cllective adjudication of the matter

5. The trial Coufl 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.5l of 2007 dated 15.06.2020, there is no whisper vu'ith rcgard to the allcged agreement of transt-er dated 08.11.1984 stated to have been executed b1' her mother-in- law in her lavor based on which the petitioner herein is claimir.rg to be absolute ou ner.

6. Further. the Court below held that the petitionel herein ought to have filed a separate suit seeking declaration in pursuance of the agreement ol transt-er vide 08.11.1984 instead of seeking to be irnpleaded by liting the underlying interlocutory application in the appeal suit, when the reliel sought fbr in the above suit is for partition and scparate possession which is already clecreed.

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 ancl to 3 show her name having been mutated in the revenue records and held that thc petitioner herein is not required for deciding the above appeal suit.

8. 'Ihe trial Cor-rrt held that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the relcvance or necessity o1'her role or requirement in deterrnining the issues in A.S. No.9 ol- 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 heraddition was no1 ncccssar')' lbr the ell-ective adjudication of the matter.

9. Agglin,cd by thc above said order dated 05.06.2023 the petitioner hcrcin have pref-erred the present Civil Revision Petition.

10. Fle-ard Sri C. lllrrumantha Rao learned Counsel fbr thc petitiorrcr and Sri Yadaiah Barrisetty, learned Counsel appearing on behall of respondent No. l; Sri Venkata Mayur, leamed Counsel appearing on behal f of respondent No.2 and perused the record. I l The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and thc trial Court lailed to exercise its jurisdiction under Orcler I Rule 9 and l0(2) CPC by not irnpleading the petitioner as rcsponclent No.9 in the abovc appeal suit, despite being necessrry 4 .! party to the said appeal suit; that she is entitled and has exclusive right, title, interest in respect ol'the lands covered in the agreement of transfer; and that the trial Couft ought to havc appreciated that the agreerrent of transfer is in between the lamily rnembers and no other record is necessary to produce be lore the trial Court. Ilence, the petitioner herein had acquired intcrest in the al.,ove appeal suit, and therefirre her presence is essential lor the ellective adjudication of the appeal suit; and that the trial Court elred in nrisapplying the settled legal principles regarding in.rpleadrncnt.

12. Per crtntrct, the respondents hercin contend that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on thc ground ol'ahsence of merit, as the proposed respondent No.9. i.c., petitioncr herein allegedly created the agreement of transf-er and t-ailed to show any relevance on her part as necessary parly to the appeal suit; and that her irnpleadment is not essential lbr cllective adjudication. Thus, the application filed for lack ol bona.fitles and is liable to be dismissed.

13. I have taken note of thc respcctive contentions urged

14. It is perlinent to note that the petitioner herein is seeking to be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit rlrle A.S No.9 of I ,/ 5 2020 clairning that the suit scheduled properties are transferred in her f-avour on the basis of the said agreement of transfer dated

08. I I . 1984 executed by her mother-in-law. However, as rightly hetd by the trial Cou(, 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.' Akshora Brahma Mines and Development and Ors. vs. Kampa Honoku and orst). l6.The Crucial test for inrpleading any party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, is whether presencc of such party is necessary or proper without whom there can be no effect or final adjudication of IvaNr laplots.ilu ot i tJ -'t all the issues involved in the suit with regard to the same subject matter.

17. As per the doctrine of dominus /ifrs the ptainti ffs in the suit have the exclusive rights to decide against whorn the suit is instituted and cannot be compelled to include a pa(y against whom no relief is sought. Since, the petitioner/proposcd rcspondent No.9 has not claimed any relief in the suit. sl.re do not satisfy the criteria of being necessary or proper party tbr her to bc irnpleaded in the appeal suit by the Court below.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai Intemutiottol Airport Pvt. Lld. vs. Regency Convention Cente and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Orl has held as under:

12. ....the scope and ambit of Order I of l?ule l0(2) Cl'(' regarding striking ofi or odding parties. The said suh-r'ulc is not ahout the right o.f a non-parly to be impleaded as a p r4. hut uhour rhe juclicial discretion of the court to strike oul or udd po'ties ul un.t stuge o.f u proceeding. The discretion unclcr the suh-rule cun ba estt cised either suo moto or on the application of thc pluinti./f or the de.li,ndant, or on an application of a person who is rutl a po'ly to lhe suit. l'he courtcatl strike out ary) party who is improperl-v joinad. Tlrc cotrrt t'an add anyone as a plaintifl or as a defendant tl it .t'iruls that he is o necessort r uatulscloazzzo ro 7 I ! party or proper part.y. Strch tleletion or addition can be v,ithout any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit lo impose. In exercising its judicinl discretion under Order I Rule l0(2) of the Code, the courl will o.f course oct uccorditrg to reason and fair play and not according l<t rvltims und caprice. This Court in Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Lttl. v. lnrest Import MANU/SC/0502/1980 : 1981 (l) SCC 80 reiterutetl rhe clussic definition of 'discretion' by Lord Mansfield in R. v. l{"ilkas 1770 (98) ER 327 thot 'discretion' u,hen applied to courts of .iuslica, means sound discretion guided by law- It must be governed hv rule. not bv humour: il must not be arbitrary, vague. and./itntilill. 'bul legal and regular'. We may now give some illustrolions regunling exercise oJ discretion under the said Sub-Rule. l2 l;1 **'**+ If a p,:r.tott naka.s utt aDplication for beint! imnleaded 12.3) contendinp thot hc is u ntccssurr purtt, und il the courl /inds that he is a necesstu v l)arh. it cutt iDtltlaud him. I/'rhc oluintiff onDoses such intpleadme nl. lhetl in.\tt d ol iltpltudint :uch u purly, whp is loLtadA bc u necessttr-t' p4!14.,I hc (oun nttr proceed lo dismiss lhe suit b)) holdins that the apDlicatt lrtrs o nacessarv oarly and in his absence the plaintiffwas not entitlcd to unt,rclic/ in lhe suil ,', ,r *****

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 justifu 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 primarity instituted tbr partition and separate possession, cannot be sustained without establishing any legal basis. I I I I 8 20, In view of the above, the revision petitioner herein cannot be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal suit under Ordcr I llule 9 &10(2) CPC filed for seeking partition and scpanLte posscssion on the basis o1'an agreement of transfer, considering Llrat she ought to have filcd separate suit to seek redressal ol her gricvance bclbrc the competent Court of jurisdiction; that the nrain suit ude O.S. No.5l of 2007 having been already decreed whercin the petitioncr herein was not a party to the said suit, this Court is ol ttre vierv that. the petitioner herein does not qualifo as necessar') parn, for thc efll'ective arljudication of the issues in O.S. No.-5 1 o l' 1007 rvhich is pending consideration in Appeal vide A.S. No.9 ol'1010.

21. In light of the foregoing discussion, [[ris Court is ol thc considered view that the Appellate Court has rightly hetd that the inrpleadment of petitioner/proposed respondent No.9 is not substantial or necessary party in the appeal suit.

22. i\ccordingly, this Courl finds no ground to iuterf erc with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisorv jurisdiction under Afticle 221 of the Constitution of India. 9 !.

23. Accordingly, the Civit Revision Perition is devoid of n'rerit and is dismissed. The order dared 05.06.2023 in I.A. No.6l5 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. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRA CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District. 2. One CC to Sri. C Hanumantha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Yadaiah Barrisetty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. P. Shiva Reddy, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. N I Y]R/GH w I HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 r> ORDER CRP.No.1735 ot 2O23 .z.<'--' 1rtlu S lrl f e ) I 1'+ 2 g 0[,i zl[i {)rtiPa r.. 'r 6( 'z a] DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION. @ \o $.1