The High Court · 2025

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppol 9f !!" peiition, itru Hign court may ue pteiieJ to suspend the orders in r.A.No.1403 0f 2019 in oS.Nb.2 0f 2o1g atsatiotzozq on the file of the lV Addr. District Judge at sangareddy tiil the disposar of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G. Srividya Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Sri Krishna Kumar B The Court made the following: ,.: *lF" , rrl, _*_.",.,- \ i_a_ F THE HONOT]RABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CN'IL REVISION PETITION No.4194 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil ltevision Petition is filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs aggrieved by the ordcr dated 16.10.2024 passed in LA.No.l403 of2019 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 bv the leamed IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The petitione rs are thc plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Jangaiah and the plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of plaintifl No.l. They filed O.S.No.2 of 20 19 fbr partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and to allot one share to them. The petitioners / plaintiffs filed a petition under Ordcr I Rule l0 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice vide I.A.Nol403 ol'2019 to implead Laxmi Narsimha Educational Society as delendant No.4 being the lease holder of the entire suit schedule propert)'givcn hy rcspondents I and 2 under two separate lease deeds. It was the contention ol'thc pctitioncrs / plaintilfs that defendant No.4 was running an educational institution bl name l-axmi Narsim]ra Educational Society in the suit schedule properly and that he rvas a proper and necessary party.

3. The rcspondcnts I and 2 filed counter disputing the relationship of petitioner No.2 rvith thcir l-ather .langaiah. They were claiming rights over the 2 Dr.GR& J crp_4194 2024 suit schedule property under a will Deed dated 01.12.2007 executed by Jangaiah, their father, in their favor. 'Ihey contended that the proposed defendant No.4 was not a necessary party to decide the issues involved in the suit and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Notice was issued to the proposed party / defendant No'4' The proposed party also engaged an advocate, but did not fite any counter and not opposed the petition in I.A.No.1403 of 2019.

5. on considering the contentions of both the leamed counsel, the trial court i.e. the leamed IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy dismisyd the petition observing that the presence of lease holder was not necessary for adjudication of a partition suit. He was neither a proper nor a necessary party in a suit for partition. The trial court further observed that the petitioners failed to seek any consequential amendment upon the implcadment of proposed respondent No'4 asdefendantNo.4inthemainsuitandRule28ofCivilRulesofPracticewas not complied with and dismissed the petition on the said two grounds' Aggrieved by the said dismissal of I.A'No'1403 of 2019, the petitioners - 6 plaintiffs preferred this CRP. 7 Heard Ms.G.Sri Vidya, leamed counsel for the petitioners on record and the leamed counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 I I Dr.GRR, J crp_4194 2024 g. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court came to an incorrect conclusion that the proposed parry / defendant No'4 being a lease holder was not a necessary parry. The defendant No.4 already changed the nature of the property by constructing several buildings therein and was running an educational institution and was also trying to make further constructions. Though the proposed party was not a share holder of the property, he was in actual possession of the property at the instance of respondents 1 and 2. [n the event of decreeing the suit, in the final decree proceedings, a question might arise as to who was responsible to deliver possession of the share of the petitioners. To avoid atl luture complications, it was necessary to implead the proposed part)i as defendant No.4 for effective adjudication of the suit. The peririoners also filed a petition vide I.A.No.l79 of 2023 to dfect the proposed parry / defendant No.4 to deposit half of the rents before the trial court. Without making him as a paro' to the suit proceedings, it was not possible to seek the reliefofdeposit of rcnts from the proposed party. The trial court also dismissed I.A.No.l79 ol- 2023 and they were taking separaie steps for challenging the said order.

8.1. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioners further submined that the trial court observed that the petitioners had not sought any consequential amendment as rcquired under Ruie 28 of civil Rules of Practice. The petitioners filed the suit through an advocate, who filed I.A.No.1403 of 2019. Accidentally or 1 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_4194 ]024 inadvertently, the said counsel had not sought the relief of consequential amendment as requ ired under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. The petitioners changed the counsel and had requested the trial court to permit the petitioners to amend the petition by adding the relief of consequential amendment under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, but the trial court not allowed the said petition. The petitioners could not be deprived of their right for the mistake committed by the counsel. The procedural aspects could not take away the substantial rights of the parties and it was a triable issuel which could be decided at the time of trial and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and another v. Sha4{al Murari and anotherr on the aspect that, "Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. [t has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non-compliance, tho'procedural, \.yill thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing ofjustice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of a case, we should riot enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities."

9. Leamed counsel for the respondents I and 2 on the other hand submitted that the court below rightly exercired its discretion as empowcred undcr Order I 1 1976 AIR I t 77 i I 5 Dr.G RR, J cfp _4194 _2024 Rule l0(2) of CPC by considering the facts and circumstances of the case placed before it. The impugned order was passed with clear observation that the respondent No.4 was not necessary for effective adjudication of the suit proceedings. The petitioners failed to explain as to how the proposed party was a proper party and why his presence was necessary for complete and effective adjudication ol- the dispute. l{e further contended that the petitioners plaintiffs were no way conccmed to the suit schedule property and thev were aliens to the family of the respondents. The status of the petitioner No.1 iu wife of Jangaiah was lost. u hen she u,as blessed with petitioner No.2. The petitioners did not have anl locus or tenable claim or right or concem over the suit. Schedule property and prayed to dismiss the petition.

10. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the trial court comm itted any error in passing the order in dismissing the petition hled by the petitioners for impleading the proposed party as defendant No.4 in the suit. I l. Admiftedly, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession by the pctitioncrs hercin and the proposed defendant No.4 was a lease holder of the suit schedule property from the respondents I and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 wcre disputing the relationship of the petitioner No.2 with their father Jangaiah. They were claiming the property through a will deed dated 0l .12.2007 executed by Jangaiah. '['hesc claims of the respondents need to be decided during the 6 Dr.GRR, J crp-4194-2021 course of trial. The petitioners also stated that they have also filed I.A.No.179 of 2023 to direct the proposed party - defendant No.4 to deposit the rents into the trial court and submitted that the said petition was dismissed by the trial court and they were taking steps challenging the said order.

12. The High Court of Madras ln Kamalesan and others v. RPushpagaran and others2, while considering the aspect whether a tenant could be impleaded in a suit for partition, held that: "14. The Court have considered the provision ofOrder I Rule l0(2) of CPC were very wide and the power of Courts were equally extensive. Even, without an application, implea$ as party, the Court can add any other party if such party is nec€ssary party to enable Court to ellectually and completely adjudicate questions involved in the suit. Necessary pafty is one without whom no order can be effectively made and proper party is one whose presence is necessary as party and he had relevant evidence to give on some questions involved and he becomes necessary witness. But, in the present case, the petitioners/proposed parties and tenants are 3rd parties and they were no way connected in respect of suit schedule of property except the tenant. In the suit schedule of property, they cannot be added as the defendants, since they are not the legal heirs of the original owners of the suit schedule of property and there is no relief also claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the proposed parties. Ifat all the 3rd defendant wants to income of the rent, they can very well to apply to the Court to hle an appropriate application lor appointing an Advocate Receiver '] 2017 SCC Online Mad 445 I 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_4194_2024 lor collecting the rental amount fiom the tenant and to deposit the Court or the 3rd defendant himself have right to file an application sceking direction to the tenant, who are in actual possession of the suit schedule of property to deposit the rental amounts. []ut. without doing so, the 3rd defendant has filed thc prcsent application. for impleading the tenant, since no relief is claimcd b1 rhe plainrifls against the proposed parties / 3rd parties in rhe suit for partition.,'

13. The Kerala High Court in Joy vs. Mary3 also while considering the aspect whether a tenant was a necessary party to a suit for partition, held that: "Thc ('odc ol- Civil procedure do€s not contain any express provision as to u,ho should be considered as necessary panies, but it is clear from an examination of the rule of Order I of the Code that two conditions must be satisfied so that a parq may be considercd a neccssary party namely; first, there must be a right to sorne relief against him in respect of th" nry'n". involved in the suit and, secondly, his presence is necessary to enable rhe courr. effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settlc all the questions involved in the suit. A person who is onlf indirectly or remotely interested is not a nec€ssary party. A person u.ho may be interested in the result of the suit and rvho ma1. have a right to seek the assistance of the Court in deciding on rhe point in issue is a proper party in that suit.,, The Court lurther observed that: "ln a parlition suit. all interested persons contesting for a right in thc propenl, were necessary parties and persons who were not intcrested in the result of the suit are not entitled to anv share in the propcrty were not necessary parties. A partit,on 3 2023 Live Law (Ker) 671 8 Dr.GRR, J crp_4194]024 suit cannot be determined in the absence of necessary parties. The rights ofthe parties cannot be judicially determined in the absence of the persons interested in contesting them. The Court is also _required to ascertain the property to be partitioned. All persons interested in determining these and other questions that may be raised in a suit for partition are necessary parties. A person who is not interested in the results of the suit or entitled to any share is not a necessary party. Conversely it means that where a person in a suit for partition is interested in its result and is entitled to a share, he must be regarded as a necessary party."

14. A person cannot be added as a defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment. The main consideration is whether or not the presence ofsuch a person is necessary to enable the Court 1l effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. As the proposed defendant No.4 is only a lease holder and has no interest in the partition suit, this Court does not find any elror in the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. As such, this Court finds that the order passed by the trial court does not require any interference by this Court.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confnming the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.l403 of 2019 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 by the leamed IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. No order as to costs. 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_4194 _2024 As a sequel. miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL GISTRAR T ASSIS //TRUE COPYII S OFFICER The lV Addl District Judge Sangareddy. One CC to Sri G. Srividya, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Krishna Kumar B, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 4 lgL h D s f l L ..} ti , TIlF: S l4 ()( o * 1'l ,!4i$ ZW $(' t-'' lcqi-ro ,, - '\:-:t: _ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER CRP.No.4194 ot2024 DISMISSING THE C.R.P. G)qiq qre-- ioF\t'