The Ibn'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels pvt. Ltd. and Orsr has hcld as under

RESPONDENTS 4 to 6/Defendants Nos.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 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 srAY of all further proceedings in o.S. No. 6 of 2022 on the file of the principal senior civil Judge at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkaigiri District, pendrng disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : SRt. c PURUSHOTH AM RAO Counsel for the Respondents : V VENKATA MAYUR The Court made the following: ORDER ,:; :, ! I ! I THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE T. \'INOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3440 of 2023 ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 14.07.2023 in I.A.No. 201 ol 2022 in O.S. No. 06 of 2022 passed by the Principal Scnior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

2. 'lhc revision petitioners hcrein arc the petitioners in the undertying intcrlocutory application filed seeking to comc on record as defendants Nos. 4 to 6 in thc main Suit.

3. The respondent Nos. t to 3 lterein filed the above suit as ptaintifls for Injunction vide O.S. No. 06 of 2022 undcr Order VII Rule I and 2 r/w Scction 26 of CI'C.

4. The petitioners hercin had tlled the underlying interlocutory apptication vide l.A. No. 204 ttl2lt22 in O S. No. 06 of 2022 under Order I Rule l0 r/w section 151 ol'Civil procedure Code (lor short 'CPC') secking permission to implead themselves as def'endant Nos. 4 to 6 in the above suit. Thc said application was filed on the 2 ground (hat they are neccssary and proper partics to the suit lor effective adjudication of matter.

5. The l rial Courl dismissed the undcrll in,-r Inlcrlocurory Application holding that the petitioners/proposed c clenclant Nos. 4 to 6 hcrcin, need not be impleaded in atro,e suit as the petitioner/proposed defendant Nos. 4 to 6 wcre nol involved in the cause ol action that led to the filing of the suit. Actutlinglv. the trial Court held that the third parties could not [-c Lmplcaded as defendants in the suit, as their addition was not n:ccssary for the effective adjudication of the matter.

6. Aggrieved bv the above said order datcd 14.07 2023 the petitioncrs herein have preferred thc prescnt ('ivil Rer.ision Petition.

7. Hcard learned counsel for the petitioners and rcilrred counsel lor the respondents and perused the record.

8. The petitioners contend that the impugned ordcr is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its .jurisdiction under Ordcr I Rule I 0 CPC by nor impleading the third-parrr pe ritioners Nos. I to 3 as dcfcndants Nos. 4 to 6 in the above srLit. ilespite the1, I I I I I I ,4' 3 being necessary parties to the suit; that thoy arc entitled and have cxclusive right to defend and protect the subject property u''hich was earmarked for park in PIot No 16 I ; that they gave representations to the GHMC for construotion of compound wall as the said place was intended for the use and benefit of the society's residents, hencc, the petitioners Nos I to 3 herein had acquircd interest in thc above suit; that their prescnce is essential for the effectivc adjudication ol'the suit; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legat principles regarding impleadment.

9. The petitioners further contend that if the petitioners Nos l to 3 herein are not impleaded as defendants Nos'4 to 6' the respondent Nos. I to 3/ptaintiff Nos. I to 3 would misrepresent and may obtain decreeintheirtavourw.hichmayleadtomuttiplicityol proceedings; that as GHMC authorities already burdened rvith work load may not bestow time to the case; and that the dcnial of their impleadment would rcsult in dcpriving them the opportunity to be heard to defend their rights in the subject suit' i I I 4

10. Per contra. the respondent Nos.l to 3/plaintitT Nos. I to 3 herein contend that the impleadment pcririon is liable to bc dismisscd on the grounds of ahsence of merit, as thc proposcd parties. i.c., petitioners Nos.l to 3 herein alleg:dlv lnade l'alse allcgations rvithout filing any documents to prove that thc subjcct property is carmarked for park in the layout; that tl-eir inrplcadmcnt is not cssential fbr clfective adjudication as the rhird partv pctitionors Nos.l to 3 hercin do not disputc that l-ht: lal,out is ol'thc year 1978, and thereby cannot claim subject plots form;ng parl of the park. I l. 'l-he rcspondent Nos.l to 3/plaintiff Nos. I ro 3 herein lurrhcr contcnd that the proposed defendants Nos. I tc I are neithcr nccessar] nor propcr parties to the suit, as their intercst is mcrclv peripheral: that they had not even alleged anl failu;.e on rhe parl ol- GHMC to protect the alleged park, and in the abs,:nce o1'such an averment. the impleadment of the petitioncr herein is neithcr warranted nor neoessary. l'hus, the application flled lacks bora ./ides and is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have taken note of the respective contcntions urgcd i t I I I i I I I l-t 5 ,l I I I I .t .! ''j x ' { ! : I I i I

13. It .is pertinent to note that the above suit was filed by respondents Nos.l to 3iplaintiffi Nos.l to 3 seeking an injunction simptictor against respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein claiming possession ofthe suit schedule property. The petitioners Nos' 1 to 3 in the undertying application are secking to be impleaded on the basis of a resolution passed by them on 26'01'2022, alleging to take action against the ptaintiffs for encroachment as land grabbers'

14. However, it is pertinent to observe that the above suit is bascd on cause of action dated 29.04.2021 and 03 01 2021, pursuant to directions issued by this Court for submission of representations in W.P. Nos. ll25}, 11371, and 11469 of 2021, as well as the alleged dispossession by the respondents/defendants' The proposed defendants were not parties to these causes ol action, and therefore' there is no basis for their impleadment as defendant Nos' 4 to 6 in the suit, 15, The Crucial test for impleading any pafly, whether as plaintiff or def'endant, is whether presence of such party is necessary or proper without whom there can be no effect or finat adjudication of 6 all the issues involved in the suit with regard to rhe same subject matter

16. As per the doctrine of dominus litis the plaintills in the suit have the cxclusive rights to decide against wtrom the suit is instituted and cannot be compelled to include a par,y against whom no rclief is sought. Since, no relief is soullht aganist the petitioners/proposed clefendant Nos.4 to 6 in the suit. thcy do not satisfv thc criteria of being necessary or proper parties lor thern to be impleaded in the suit by the Court below.

17. The Ibn'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels pvt. Ltd. and Orsr has hcld as under:

12. .. .the .tcope and ambit of Order I of Rule t0(2) Cl'C regarcling striking out or aclding parlies. The said sub-rule is not ubout thc right qf a non-party, lo be impleaded os a party, but abour rhe jtulicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties al utly stoge of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be extrci.sed either suo molo or on the application of the plaintif or the deft,ndant, or on an application ofa personwho is not o party lo the suit. 1-he court can .\trike oul any porty who is improperly joined. The ccurr caq add anyone ds a plctintilf or as a defendont if it finds that he i.: a necLt:;sury part! or proper party. Such deletion or oddition can be v,itlnut anv ' MnNU/sc/o+27lzo r o , I I I I '1 conditions or subjecl to such terms a\ lhe court deemsrtl b intpose. In exercising its judiciol discretion under Orfur I Rule l0(2) of lhe Llode, the court will of course act according lo reason and lbir plq, and not according to whims and caprice. This Court in Ramji Dayttwala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Inve .st Import L,[-4NU/SC/0502/ 1980 : l98l (1) SCC 80 reiterated lhe clu.ssic definition of'cliscretion' by Lord Mansfield in R. v. Wilkes 1770 (98) ER 327 rhar 'discretion' t'hen applied to courls ofiustice, neans sound discretiort guided by lar. It musl be governed by rule, not by hwnour; il Dtusl not be arhin'ory, voguc, untl -t'ancful, 'but legal and regular'. ll'c nruy not gn)e some illuslralion\ regarding exercise of discretion uruler the said Sub-Rule. l).l) ****+ Ifopa l) 1) rson makes an aDDlicalion {or beins imoleaded (:onlencling Ihut lrc is u necessarl D0rlv. and if thc court linds thttl he is u necessutl' Dartv. it can implead hint If the plainliff onnoses such inttleadment. llrcn inslead of imnle inv such a oarl v'ho i,s found to be o necessan, parN. lhe courl moy proceed lo dieniss lhe.suil bv holdins that rhc aDDlicant pos a necass an oortt' and in hi.s ah.sence the olaintifl was not entitled to anv relief in the suit 12.1) *'t*;r+

18. It is further to be noted that the proposed defendant Nos. 4 to 6 have failed to demonstrate any proprietary right, title, or legal interest in the suit property that would justily their impleadmcnt as pa(ies to the above suit. Thc merc filing of an interlocutory application seeking to be added as defendants in a suit primarily institutcd for injunction, which fundamentally challenges the titlc and possession claimed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 / plaintiffs Nos. I to 3, cannot be sustained without establishing such a legal basis. -r I ! I I a I , 1 ! I ! I I I I I i a I I i.' i l I i t I I t 8 \,1'i' .l \

19. In Akslrara Brahma Mines and Development antl Ors. vs. Kampa Hanoku and Or? it is held as under: I7. - .ln a .suit Jor perpetual iniunclion. ruhere the s rt I j9c;111g14g1-..111 imrnovthle t)n)Derty. it is needless to s(N that 0 rl cLrtttol inLt uirc inlo the tille ql t-!t1' 1244y but title cun be incidentallv t!o!!t into 1o provc lt i,s ul.';o tnrc that a decrc( lbr tterpetual nature o/' lroli.tt.\sDn ini unt tt,.ttt i-s nornt ally a personal oclion and decrca t.s r cr:oruut. Suclt unctirnt thcre ore, do rul bind third oarties 7 hi.s is thc rectson y'h)' ttrntnollr &) not Den il innlaudntenl of oor!t.; itl ini nction Court.\ g4!1;. Tlrcrc is o ubslra(t principla thal in o .suit /or perpetual injuncliott third purty canmtt he impleaded. lhird rrutty has anv aoprehtrttion t14L19yyill bqg!911.ived o_f the propertv. he can alwav| lile a.sepurutc suit apainsl Derson. y,ho. ln his de<'ision i.; likeh to evict him untlcr tlrc yrite o{ an or<ktr or decree for initrctio't. t')ourl ]l,'ltile dealing tith un application seeking impleadr ent, :n o :uit .for injunclion, lrud to consider lhe facts of each cose and pass ttppropriatc ortler.y.

20. Moreor er. the validitl, of thc suit is furthcr unc errnined by the lact that the court fce paid thcreon, which in thc prescnt case docs not correspond with the naturc ol the relief sought lry rhe proposed defcndant Nos.4 to 6. Thus. it is held that the proposed defendant Nos.4 to 6 are not entitled for impleadment in tl e suit, as thoy ncither possess any enforceable right over the subjcct propcrty nor 2 MnNu/aploz:tlzozl I i :l 9 have complied with the requisite procedural formalities necessary I t for such impleadment.

21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in Ramesh Hirachand Kandanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombalf, has held as under

14. It cannot be said that the main obiect of the rule is to prevent multiplicity ofactions thoush it mav incidentallv have that effect. But of the rule rather than ils that appears to be a desirable consequen main obiective. The person to be ioined mustlg g!9 whose Dresence party. l{hat makes a person a necessarv part| is r.\ necessarv as a ive on some of the noL merelv lhal he has relevanl evidence lo P queslions involved; that would only make him a necessarv witness. It is not merely lhat he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has th ought of relevant arsuments to advance Tlte onlv reason which makes il necessdry to make a Derson d party to on actton is so that he shottld be bound bv the result of the action therefore. must be a question in the and lhe questio n to be settled, aclion whiclt cannot be effectually and completely settled unles.s he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construclion of the rule bettteen tlrc direcl interest or the legal interest and commercial u1teresl... 15. It has been strenuously contended before us thal rcspondent 2 has no interesl in lhe subject matter of the littgatiotr and the presence of lhe respondent is not required to adjudicate upott the i\.\ue mvolved ifl the suit or for the purpose of deciding the real malter involved. It is pointed out that the subiect matter in the suit is the notice issued by the Municipal Corooration to the appellant and the whether it is iustilied or not. The Hindustan Pelroleum $sue $ Corporation Limited is interesled in supportinq the Municipal Corporation and sustaininp the aclion taken apainst the appellant But that does txot amount to any le al interest itt the subiect matter in , (1992) 2 SCC s24 10 I r, if anl, either in favour of the inDelllti lhe sense that lhe orde apainst the oppellant would be bindine on this responde U. Il i.\ true thctt beirg le,ssee of the prentises, the Hintlustan I,etroleum Corporatiort Linited hos an tutswer for the action prol,ost)d h)) the Municipal Corporution against tlrc appeLlant, but fbr thtt purpose of grantulg the reliel sought .for by tlte appell.ant b1, ex,tntininq the justiJication of the notice ismed by the Municipal Corporation, it is nol necessaty for tha Courl to consider that answer IJ'thi tte sc, the presence ofthe respondent carunt be considered as necc:saryfor the purpose of cnabling the Court to effectually ancl conplelely adjudicotc upon. and settle all the queslions invoh,etl in the suit. The appellant is proceeded against by the Municipal Corporutton lor the alleged uc:tion in violatiort of the ruunicipal laws The t nevance o lhe respondent aqau tst lhe aDL)ellant. if anv. could onlv be lbr violation o llrc aprcenent and that is based on a di !'tant caLtse o octiott The consolidati on ol lhese huo in lhe sanrc sutI is n?ithet contemDlated tnr pcrnissible

22. In vicrv of the above the rcvision pctitioners he,rcrn cannot be impleaded as defendant No. 4 to 6 in the suit under Crrder I Rule 10 CPC fited Ibl injunction simpliciter., considering the <:ausc of action involved, as they do not qualif, as necessary pafties for the effective ad-judication of the issues and their impleaclment as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 to thc sr.lit is unwananted.

23. In light oi thc foregoing discussion, this Courl is of the considered view that the trial Courl has rightty held that the proposcd dcfendants arc not substantial or necessarl parties to bc impleaded in the present suit. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to intcrfere with the impugned order in e(ercise of its I .v 11 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 from any inhrmity or error

25. . Accordingly, the Civil Rcvision petiticn is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Tire order. clatcd 14.C7.2023 in I.A. NIo. 207 of 2022 in O.S. No.06 of 2022 is sustaiired. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pencling if any shall stand closed. No order as 10 costs. SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT ry- OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civit Judge, Medchal Matkajgiri District, Matkajgiri 2 One CC to SRl c PURUSHOTHAM RAO Advocate tOpUCI 3 One CC to SRl. V VENKATA MAYUR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies PSL w t t HIGH COURT DATED:1 110712025 ( o 1Bf s 7,t i5 O2 SEP 2E ,)/ ORDER CRP.No.3440 ot 2023 I I I I i I f I t I I t I t a I i I I i t I I DISMISSING THE CRP O</t1 ei q