The High Court · 2025

r/o H. No. 8-44t11A, Sri Sai Nager Colony Balapur (Village and Mandal), Ranga Reddy Dist, Hyderabad-500005

16. Erukula @ Kurakula Laxmi, w/o Late Kistaiah @ [ti:!lq aged 60 years, occ' housewifE, r/o Ravalkol, Medchal-MalkajgiriDist'-501 401 lT.Damanagari Prasana, s/o DamanagariJaya.raju, qqgd.J0.y9a1s-'.ogc . . .^. . housewif;, rto2-2111. Kandlakoya (V1, tvtedchal (M)' Medchal-MalkajgiriDist- 501401 ...ResPondents / ResPondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High court may be pleased to allow this civil Revision Petition by setting aside the decretal order dated 12- 09-2023 passed in LA. No. 237 of 2O21 in O.S. No. 903 of 2007 on the file of Hon,bte ilnd Additional District Judge, Medchal-MalkaigiriDist At Medchal, and be pleased to implead the petitioners herein as defendants in the suit' ANO 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in oS No. 903 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble llnd Additional District Judge Medchal Malkaigiri District at Medchal pending disposal of the main revision case. Sri D. Amarender Reddy Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 5: Sri K. Raghava Charyulu The Court made the following Order:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE, T. VINOD KUMAR CryII- REVISION PETITION No. 2894 of 2023 OITDER The present Civil Revision Petition is prcl'erred against the order dated 12.09.2023 in I.A.No.237 of 2021 in O.S. No. 903 of 2007 passed by the II Additional District Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. 'fhe revision petitionels herein are the peLitioners in thc underlying interlocutory application sceking to come on record as det'endant Nos. 9 and l0 in the main Suit vide O.S.No.903 o1'20{Jl

3.'t'he respondent lrlos.l and 2 herrin filed the above suit vitle O.S.No.903 of 2007 for declaration of title and recoverv o1' possession vide O.S.No.903 of 2007 under Order VII RLrle I rirv Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure (tbr short'CPC').

4. The petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 237 of 2021 in O.S. No. 903 of'2007 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking permission to implead themselves as defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the above suit. The said 2 ,r application \ /as filed on the ground that they are necessary and - proper parties to the suit for effective adjudicaticn of matter.

5. 'l-he trial Cor-rr1 disrnissed the underlying interlocutory applicatiorr holdirrg that the pctitioners/proposed defendant Nos. 9 & 10 herein, nccd not be in'rpleaded in above suit. The trial court crbserved that the respondent No.l, 2 and their family members filed rhe aLrove suit vicle O.S. No. 903 of 2007 in respect of propertl situatcd ir-r Sy No. l53la adrneasuring Ac.7-11 gts of I{avolkole village which is pending adjudication, simultaneously tlre petirioncrs herein also filed suit vtde O.S. No. l02l o1' 2016 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of propelty situatod in Sy No.l53/b admeasuring Ac.i-34 gts of Ravolkole village which is also pending adjudication, as such the Courl belou, held that though, both the above suits appear to be proceeding simultaneously, the survey numbers, extent, and boundaries related to the subject properlies are distinct and different frorn each other.

6. Further, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff s in both the above suits are claiming two different properties, and the claim of 3 the petitioners herein being plaintiffs' in O.S. No. 1021 o1'2016 are clairning land in Sy No. 153/b which is not related to property in strit vide O.S. No. 903 of 2007, held that the petitioners herein are not required for deciding the title and possession in O.S. No. 903 o1' 2007

7. The trial Court held that the petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the relevance or necessity of their role or lecluirernent in determining the issues of title and possession in sLrit vide O.S. No. 903 of 2007. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the petitioners could not be impleaded as defendant Nos. 9 and l0 in the main suit i.e. O.S. No. 903 of 2007, as their addition was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter

8. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 12.09.2023 the petitioners herein have preferued the present Civil Revision Petition

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

10. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under 4 order I ltule l0(2) cpc by .or impleading the peritioners as defendants Nos. g &. I0 in the above suit. clespite they being - necessary parties to the suit; that they are entitled and has exclusive right to defend and protect the sub.iect property; that the trial court further ought to have afforded the petitioners an opportunity to participate in the trial, as no prejudice would have been caused to any party b1' such participation; lhat the petitior]ers herein had acquired interest in the above suit; and that their presence is essential 1'or tlie el'fective adjudication of the suit; that the trial court erred in rnisapplyi,g settred regal principles regarding irnpleadment. ll. Per contrct, thc respondents herei'contend that the trial court has rightly clisnrissed the i,rpleaded petition filed by the petitioners on the ground of absence of rnerit, as the proposed defendant No. 9 and 10, i.e., petitio,ers herein allegedly made false allegations and failed to show any relevancy for their impreadment in the suit as necessary parlies to the suit; that their impleadment is not essential for effective adjudication as the petitioners herein themselves are claiming both the suit schedules are different from each other, thus, 5 the petitioners herein i.e. plaintiffs'in O.S. No. 1021 of 2016 has no claim in Sy No. 153/a.

12.'l'he respondents herein further contend that the proposed defendants Nos.9 & l0 are neither necessaqt nor proper parties to the suit, as their interest is merely peripheral as such the impleadrnent of the petitioners herein is neither wan'anted nor necessary. Thus, the application filed lacks bona.fides and is liable to be disrnissed. I3. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

14. It is pertinent to note that in the above suit vide O.S No. 903 of 2007 the petitioners herein are seeking to be impleaded as det'cndant No. 9 and l0 solely alleging collusion between the plaintitf in O.S. No. l02l of 2016 and defendants in O.S. No. 903 of 2007 without explaining as to how they are required for deciding the title and possession in O.S. No. 903 of 2007, when both the suit schedule properties, survey numbers, extents and boundaries are different from the property that is claimed by the respondents herein in the suit filed by them vide O.S. No.903 of 2007. 6

15. It is pertinent to observe thar i. the suit vide o.s.No.903 of 2007 the cause ol'action rvas basecr on the deretio, of narne of Narayan Reddy l'rorn pattadar colu.rn and def-endants therein trying to alienate the suit scheclule properry on 23.0g.2002. The proposed petitione.s/def'endant Nos. g & l0 herein were not parties to the aforesaid cause of action for them to seek for coming on record as defendant Nos. 9 & 10, arrd therefore, there is no basis for tlreir clairn fbr' impleadmerr as defbndant Nos. g & l0 in the suit.

16.'fhe crucial rest for inrpleadi.g any pafty, whetrrer as praintiff or defendant, is whether presence of such party is necessary or proper without whom there can bc no effect or final adjudication of all the issues involved in the suit with regard to the same subject matter

17. As per the doctrine of dorninus litis the plaintiffs in the suit have the exclusive rights to clecicle against whom the suit is instituted and cannot be compelled to include a party against whom no relief is sought. since, in the suit vide o.S.No.g03 0f 2007, no relief is sought aganist the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.9 & /--, l. 7 10 they do not satisfy the criteria of being necessary or proper parlies for thern to be impleaded in the suit by the Court below.

18.1'he Horr'ble Supreme Court in Muntbai International Airport PvL Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre und Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Orsl has held as under:

12. ....the sutpe and ambit of Order I of Rule l0(2) CPC regarding '['he said sub-rule is not about the right striking oLtt or udding Tturties. o.f' a non-purl.), lo bc impleaderl o.s ct part),, but about the judiciol disc'ralittrt of-tlrc courl lo strike oul or atlcl parties at any stage oJ a proc:ccding. T'hc discrelion undet' tlze sub-rulc can be exercised either suo ntoto or on the upplicatictn o/ the plainliff or the deJbndant, or on an applicution of'a pcrsonv,ho is't'tol a port),lo the suit. T'he court can strika ottt ory put't.t. v'ho is intproperly .ioined. The courl can add ont,one as u phintiff ot' cts u cle.fenclant i/'it./incls that he is a necessary pdrly or proper pLtrty. Such delelion or addition can be without any condilions or sub.ject to such lern'$ us lhe uturt deems /it to impose. ln exerc'ising it.s .iudiciul cliscretictn under Ortler I Rule l0(2) of the Codc, the court u,ill of coursc uc't ctccording to reoson and fair play uncl not ctccording to whims and caltrice. This Court in Ramji Dayuwala & Sons (P) Ltcl. v. Invest Import MANU/SC/0502/1980 . 1981 (l) SCC 80 rciteruled lhe classic clefinition of 'discrelion' by Lord A[crns./ield in R. v. Wilkes 1770 (98) ER 327 that 'disuetion' when appliecl lo courts of .iustice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rula, not by humour; il must not be crrbitrury, vag,ue, and.fanciful, 'but legal and regular'. We may now give sonte illustrations regarding exercise ofdiscretion under the said Sub-Rule. 12. l1 **'r** ,l ,r ***** I Z. a,l ' vaNulscto42i tzoto t 2.3) u bc a ncc'c.t:;arv Ltt'l tttttt ^t.t the lhe plainli,fJ'was not entitled to ary ralic.f in thc suit. 12.4.) +***>k l9.It is further to be noted rhat the proposed defendant Nos. 9 & l0 has failed to dernonstrate any proprietary right, title, or legal i.terest in the suit property that u,ould justify their i.rpleadment as parties to the above suit. 'the rnere filing of an interlocutory application seeking to be added as defendants in a suit prirnarily instituted for declaration of title and possession, which fundamentally challenges the title ancl possession claimecl by respondents/plaintiff's, cannot bc sustair-recl rvithout establishing such a legal basis.

20. In Akshqra Brahmu Mines and Development sncl ors. ps. Kompa Hanoku and Ors2 it is held as under: t7. . 2 rraaNulap rclfi/2023 .{7' 9 his deci.sion is Iikelv to evtct him undgL t,he suise of an order or decree for iniunction..

21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in Ramesh Hirocltand Kundann ol v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater BombttYt, has held as under:

14. Il cannol saicl that the main obiect of the rule is' to Drevent Der.son lo be that appea$ lo be a desirable clnseuuence o/' the rule ralher than tts muin obiective. 'l'he Dresence $ nece.tsurt' us u ourh'. l4/hal nnkas u pcrsl n 0 necassctry Darty is rutt rterelv thut he has relevuttl evidence to tlive on sonrc of the d only ntake hint u necessury u) itness. Il .tt in thc c'orrecl soLulion o/ some , t/' ro I ovr t n I / t t' o, t rtlauls lo nrlvttnro v lhal ht' hus cut i trtlvorl rtnrl hu lho ttohl involved; th4! is nol n must be one tuestion n reason the action to an aclion is so thut he shoulcl bc bound b v lhe resull and the queslion to he settled. therefbre, must be a question in the il ncces, on which tled unless is ct par\t. T'he line has been clrau,n on a v'ider construction o/'the rule between the direct inleresl or the legul inlerest emd commercial inleresl... 15, It has been slrenurtusly conlcnded. be/bre us th(tt respondent 2 hqs no inlercst in the subjecl rnatler of the litigation and the presence o./'the respondent is rtot recluired lo adjuclicctte upon the issue int,cth,etl in tha suit or ./itr the put'?tose of deciding the real matter involvcd. lt is pointecl out that the subicct maller in the suit is ce issued Cor ion I the issue is whether il is -iustified or not The Hindustan Petroleum tted is interesled in supporti the Municipal Corporation L the aooellant. Corporation and .sustainint! the uction taken aPa But that does not amount to aryt legal tnterest in the sub.iect matter in order. if anv. either in favour of lhe aooellant or the sense that qgainst the appeila lt is true 'geezlzscc s24 10 that being les.see o.f the pretnise s, the llineru.sran petroretutt Corpot'ation Limited has u, urzsv,er.for the ctcriort propr.secl by the Municipal Corynrarion agui,st the appeilant. bt.tt.frtr the purpose o.f. granting the rclie/' sought .fbr b.1, the ctppcllctnt by excttnining thc .jtt.stification o.f tlrc notice i.r.snetl b1, 11,,u Munic.ipctl Cot.por.crlion, it i.s t'tor ,'teces.\or_t'.for tltc court lct c:onsider rhal un.ty,el. {/'thut he.so, thc presgncs oJ the re';ltondenr cannot be consitlcred as ttecessctry for lhe purTtose o.f' erubling the Court to e.ffectuull.y, ctr4 contpletell, ad.jutlicotc upon antl settlc ctll rhe quesrirns intttlvecl in rlrc suit. fhe apltellant is proceeded againsr by the Municipul corpor.ation -for the allcged actirtn in ,-iolation of the municipal latvs, Thc prievance of the aonel,lcrnt. if ctnv. coulcl ctnly be for usainsl .tDo con,solidatiott o'f thcse nto in tlrc .sttil is cr di tot'l 'fhe uclton. conl' 'ed nor perm issible. 22' In vieu'of the above the revisiorl petitioners herein ca,not be irnpleaded as defendant Nos. 9 & 10 in the sLrit lLled 1br rjeclaration of title and possession, considering there is no grievance by the respondents/plaintiffs in the ulairl suit herein i.e. o.s. No. 903 of 2007 against the petitioners herein as the suit scheclule properties are different including the boundaries. Thus, the petitioners herein do not qualil'y as necessary parties for the effbctive adjudicatio, of the issues ar-rd their irnpleadment as del.endant Nos.9 & 10 to the suit is unwarranted. 23, In light of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly held that the proposed delegrdants are not substantial or necessary parties to be 'a

1.1 irnpleaded in the present suit. Consequently, this Courl finds no ground to interfere with the irnpugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

24. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not suffer fiom any infirmity or error

25. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is disrnissed. The order dated 12.09.2023 in I.A. No. 237 of 2021 in O.S. No.903 of 2007 is sustained. No order as to costs Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER I To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal 2. One CC to Sri D. Amarender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Raghava Charyulu, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies vc/PSL U(L HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.2894 ot 2023 1rl'n- S 'r.{ r) ? 2 IEE 2P5 * SPATC'fr!-,: DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS @KL*r