The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER t. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CTVIL ,ON PETITION No.27O5 of 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed und.er Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia as against the order, dated O4.O3.2O25 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the application filed by the third parties to implead themselves as defendant Nos.2 to 13 in O.S.No.1O of 2024 was allowed.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.l to 12 are the proposed parties and respondent No.14 . herein is the defendant in O.S.No.1O of 2024. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff in o.s.No.lo of 2024 filed the above suit against the defendant, seeking for perpetual injunction restraining him, his legal heirs, representatives, agents, servants, henchmen etc', from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjo5rment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land i.e., Agricultural Land admeasuring Acs.4.2O guntas in Sy.No.ll4-41, bounded by North: Panadi (*ay to Agriculture lands), South: Agricultural \ I 2 ctp_2705_2025 land of G.Y'ellaiah, East: Raod to Kyasampally to Vidyaniketan School and West: NH-44 Road, situated at Patharajampet Village Shivar of Kamarecldy Mandal & District. Pending the said suit, the proposr:d parties i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein have f,rled an application under Order I Rule 10(1) (21 read with section 151 of the code of civil Procedure to implead them in the said suit as defendant Nos.2 to 13, claiming that they are the original ou,ners, pattedars and possessors of agricultural land in suit S-v.No. l14lpartand they are in peacefur possession and enjoymt:nt over the respective lands.

4. Furthr:r, contending that the plaintiff might have colluded with the dt:fendant and filed the above sr-r.it creating false boundaries and trying to interfere into their peaceful possession enjoyment o'uer their respective lands.

5. It is further contended that the land in sy.No.114 is assigned lar:'d and it was allotted to them to their respective extents. Bur:, the plaintiff by creating false documents got wrongly entered his name into the revenue records, though he is not the original allottee and with an intention to grab away their varuable property, filed the above suit and as such they are proper and necessary parties to the above suit and they are 3 NNN crp_2705_2025 necessary to be impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to L3 in the said suit.

6. The plaintiff also filed counter to the said I.A. contending that the proposed parties i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 13 herein are neither necessary nor proper parties to the said suit and that the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and that he has submitted all the relevant documents before the Court. It is also further contended that the defend"artt, along with his henchmen are trying to interfere into his possession over the suit land. It is further contended that proposed parties have not given any boundaries of their alleged land, that itself shows that the proposed parties only to occupy the land of the plaintiff filed the said petition. It is further contended that as per the policy of the 7. Government as to the allotment of the assigned land to the landless poor in earlier days i.e., of an extent of Acs.5.O0 guntas; Acs.2.00 guntas or Ac.1.OO guntas, but not in guntas as shown by the proposed parties in their passbooks- B. It is further contended that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the proposed parties on the misguidance of the defendant in the suit caused a I t 'I I t i i i I t I i I i 4 ctp_2705_2025 interference: inspite of the orders passed by the: trial Court were in existencr: and beat him with hands and also threatened him and his inrnates, for rvhich the plaintiff also lodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No.533 of 2O24, dated

19.12.2024 for the offences under Sections 329 (3), 115 (2]r, 352, 351 (2) reacl with Section 3 (5) of B.N.S. and prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. Having considered the counter and pleading of both the parties, the learned Judge have carne to conclusion that when there is a boundarl, dispute between the piaintiff and the proposed perrties, it is just and necessary to look into the said issue in the main suit and also test whether the boundaries of suit land mentioned in the plaint schedule are true and correct. If the propo:sed parties are impleaded as defendant Nos.2 to 13 in main suit they u,ill have opportunity to put forth their plea in the main si.rit so that the court can adjudicate the dispute effectively and it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff or defendant b,-'cause they will be given an opportunity to file of their respective rejoinders in the main suit. As such the learned Judge carne to conclusion that they are proper and necessary parties to be impleaded in o.s.No.10 of 2024 and accordingly, the petition was allowed. :'i 5 ilrvR, dp_2705_2025

10. Aggrieved by the said order impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos.2 to 13, the plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the learned Judge did not consider that the plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction simplicitor only against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. The learned Judge ought to have appreciated that in the event there is any dispute with regard to the title and possession of the suit schedule property between the plaintiff and proposed parties, a separate suit has to be frled by them and they cannot raise such dispute in the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The learned Judge ought to have dismissed the I.A. as the same is filed in a vague manner without disclosing either the extents of each of them, no boundaries mentioned and neither any details of the identification of the properties mentioned vis-d.-vis the suit schedule property. The learned Judge erred in allowing the implead application with wrong finding holding that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff when the subsequent orders passed by the very same Court had shown that the prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. The learned Judge by passing the impugned. ord.er had changed the entire nature of the suit and 6 ctP_2705_2025 .,,.,i, . the nature of dispute between the plaintiff and defendant in the

11. None appeared for the respondents. Hence, heard Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Having perused the entire material placed on record no\ r the points that arise for consideration are that " 1) whether the trial Court committecl any error in allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 1O of C.P.C 2) vuhether the proposed parties are necessary and proper parties in a suit for simplicitor injunction?"

12. The rnain grievance of the revision petitioner before this Court who is that the plaintiff in the suit i.e., O.S.No.10 of 2024, which is a suit for simlicitor injunction originally frled only against the defendant contending that the defendant and his henchmen ir.re trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and as he was cultivating the said land without any interruption and the defendant without having any right or title over the land taking advantage of his post as he was earlier working as v.R.o. (now after merging them in different departments; working as Junior Assistant at Government Arts 7 NNN cry_27o5_2025 and Science College, Kamareddy), hatched a plan to occupy the suit land by creating false documents and being V.R.O. as he was having knowledge of creating documents. Accordingly, he had created. some papers in the narne of one Munni Begum W/o. Mohd. Khasim Ali, late his sister in respect of land in Sy.Nos.ll4-87, 114-86, 1154-25A in fact she died long back and no assignment was made in her favour and showing the pahanies, the defendant and his henchmen are frequently interfering in the suit schedule property. As such, the said suit was filed against the defendant.

13. On perusal of the cause of action of the.plaintiff, would clearly show that the plaintiff was having cause of the action only against the defendant as he was the only one, who said to have been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over a suit schedule property and he was only one trying to occupy the suit schedule property.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Judge while deciding the application under Order I Rulelo appears to have enlarged the scope of the suit wherein admittedly knowing futly well that the suit is only in respect of the simplicitor injunction and the learned Judge on the ground that as there is l.6d i i I I I I I i I I i, i, I u! Il l-i :i "'i ! : t . i i I 8 crp_2 ?05_2025 a dispute of boundaries and that if the proposed parties are impleaded ets defendant Nos.2 to 13 they will get an opportunity to put forth their pleas in the main suit so that the Court can adjudicate the dispute effectively. The findings given by the learned Juclge would clearly show that the iearned Judge by impleading the proposed parties as d.efendant Nos.2 to 13 in the suit has e>rpanding the scope of the suit from the suit of permanent lnjurnction to the suit of declaration to declare the rights and b,oundaries which is not the scope ol'the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff being the master of his own suit, as the main grievan<:e of the revision petitioner-plaintiff in the suit is only against the clefendant and the relief which is sought is in personarn and there being no such plea of the plaintiff nor any grievance against the proposed parties. Even the learned Judge missed the sight as to whether the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit for deciding issue before the Court. As such in the absence of any findings to that effect whether they are necessary and proper parties for deciding the dispute and test the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit, the order passed by learned Judge only on the ground that the rights of the proposed parties and the boundary disputes among the plaintiff 9 NNN ctp_2705_2025 and the proposed parties also can be decided is erroneous. The said dispute cannot be tested in a suit for injunction simplicitor. If the proposed parties have any grievance they have an alternative forum and alternative remedy by way of filing any comprehensive suit. As the present suit is only in respect of the simplicitor injunction is only against the defendant, the same cannot be converted into a comprehensive suit and thereby extending the scope which is impermissible. The learned Judge ought not to have impleaded respondent Nos.l to 13 as defend.ant Nos.2 to 13, as such, the ord.er passed by the learned Judge deserves to be set aside and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 04.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.1O of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. S.MALLIKAJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER {

1. The Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, Kamareddy district. 2. One CC to SRl. T SURYA SATISH Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies \*# / i k o 1ylt1 !'l-4 14: 28 il0't ffi E DE.*r, 4rctir-C * HIGH COURT DATED:0110912025 CRP.No.2705 of 2025 ALLOWED EL lrtlr