The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 4 5 6 NENI HITECH CLUB PVT LTD., SECUNDERABAD, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri G.Hanuman Chandu, S/o G.Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, Occ Business, Managing Director of Neno Hitech Club Pvt., Ltd., R/o H.No. 1 0-1-700, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. ...PETTTTONER(S) SRI RAJ KISHAN PERSHAD,S/o late Raja Hari Kishan Pershad, Aged about 53 years, Occ Consultant, R/o 1-35-46211,BHEL Colony, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. Mr.Prem Kishan Pershad (died) per LRs., - Smt.Poonam Pershad Seth, Wo late Prem Kishan Pershad, Aged 48 years, Occ Housewife Ms.Premitha Pershad Seth, D/o late Prem Kishan Pershad, aged 22 years, Occ Student Ms.Manitha Pershad Seth, D/o late Prem Kishan Pershad, Aged 20 years, Occ Student, Roop Kishan Pershad Seth, S/o late Prem Kishan Pershad,4ge9 16years, being minor, Rep. by mother and natural guardian Poonam'Pershad Seth, aged 48 years. Occ Housewife, Respondents 3 to 6 are R/o H.No.1 -35-462, Rasoolpura, Near BHEL Colony, Secunderabad. 7 Union of tndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi - 1 10 01 1.

8. The Defence Estate Officer, Rep. by its Defence Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad. .i. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(CRPMP. NO: 7460 OF 20151

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further prooeedings in O.S.No.11212005 on the file of Hon'ble court of l- Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court at Secunderabad, pending disposal of the above revision. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. M SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA for Respondent No. 7. SRl. B. NARAYANA REDDY FOR Respondent No.8 SMT. K. PALLAVI FOR Respondent No.3. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CML REVISION PETITION No.5683 of 2O15 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed under Order 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 04.l2.2OLS passed in IA (SR) No.1L453/2OLS in O.S.No. LL2/2OOS on the file of I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein, the said interlocutory application liled by the 3.0 party under Order 1 Rule lO(2) CPC seeking to implead him was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is third party to the suit. Respondents Nos.l to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit O.S.No.1 1 of 2005 against respondent Nos.7 a.rtd 8 claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title over the suit schedule property and 2 /NRJ C.R.P. No.568j of 2015 also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering 'v\rith the suit scherlule property. Pending the suit, the present application has been filed under Order'I, Rule 1O(2) by the present revision petitioner, who claims to be the lessee ol Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The revision petitioner contends that it is a necessa-ry party to the suit and that the suit cannot be adjudicated without their inclusion.

3. The said application was taken on file at the S.R. stage and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, by order dated O4.I2.2O15 it was rejected on the ground of admissibility. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed contending that the learned Judge erred in rejecting the petition at the inception stage, on the ground that the petitioner/tenant has no locus standi and that no cause of action has arisen for the tenant to be impleaded in the suit. It is further contended that the 3 NNR] C.R.P. No.5683 of 2015 petitioner has substantial interest in the property as a lessee, and has invested a significant €unount of money in developing a function hall on the suit schedule property. The petitioner asserts that he is a proper and necessary party having a vested interest in the property. It is also contended that the learned Judge has exceeded the scope of the application and, without considering the petitioner's status as a necessary party, rejected the application. Furthermore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the issues relating to the tenant/lessee's interest, including the pa5rment of rents, are issues which affected in the adjudication process of the suit, and as such, the petition ought to have been allowed by the Court below without leading further evidence at the stage where the suit proceedings are going on.

4. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that under Order I Rule 1O(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is 4 NNN C.R.P. No.5683 of 2015 empowered to add parties to the proceedings, and the mere fact that such addition is sought subsequent to the filing of the suit cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing to register the application'under the said provision, The office objection raised ought to have been duly considered by the Court below, and the issues involved in the suit ought to have been adjudicated upon accordingly. Without addressing these materia-l issues, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application at the threshold and has committed an error of law and acted without jurisdiction, which is appa-rent on the face of the record. Hence, prayed to allow the present revision petition, as the impugned order is perverse, contrar5r to law, and liable to be set aside

5. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 7 and 8. I ,i I I 5 NNN C.R.P. No.5683of 2O1s

6. Heard Sri M. Srinivas, learned counsel for the revls10n petitioners and Smt. K. Pallavi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, who also took notice on behalf of respondent No.6 and Sri K. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.7 & 8 Though notice sent to respondent No. 1 was served, none appeared and respondent Nos.4 and 5 having refused the notice, it is treated as deemed service. None appeared for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point which arises before this Court is whether the learned Judge has committed any error in rejecting the application at the threshold and whether the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the suit i.e., O.S.No.1 L2l2OO5'which is between respondent Nos.1 to 6, 7 and 8. 6 NNRJ C.R.P. No.5683 of 2015

8. The main grievance of the revision petitioner before this Honble Court is that the lea.rned Judge failed to appreciate the purport of the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of tlivil Procedure, wherein it sought to implead as a party to the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein against Respondent No. 7

9. The case of the plaintiffs in the said suit is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the premises bearing Bungalow No. L69, LaI Bunglow, near S.V.V.V. Sanskrit College, Airport. Road, New Bowenpzrlly, Secunderabad. The said suit czune to be filed on the premise that a cause of action arose when Respond.ent Nos. 6 and 7 herein initiatecl proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, L97 L. In those proceedings, the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and had also posed a threat of dispossession. Consequently the plaintiffs were 7 TVNS/ C.R.P. No.5683 of 2O15 constrained to fiIe a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, together with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

10. As per the case of the revision petitioner, the petitioner herein admits that Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, and there is no dispute regarding their ownership. It is also an admitted fact that Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had leased out the suit schedule propert5r to the petitioner in the year 2OO4 under a perpetual lease. The petitioner contends that he has been regularly paying rent to Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. It is further case of the petitioner that when Respondent No. 7 allegedly attempted to interfere illegally with its peaceful possession and enjo5rment of the suit schedule properQr, the petitioner was constrained to 8 NNN C.R.P. No.5683 of 2015 institute a suit against Respondent No. 7. However, the said suit c€une to be dismissed on 30.12.2OL3. The petitioner further submits that he recently came to know about the pendency of A.S. SR No. 8704 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Flyderabad. The petitioner asserts that he continues to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a perpetu;al lessee, and that the present suit cannot be effectivell,r adjudicated in his absence since Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have denied the ownership of Respondent Nos. I to 6, thereby directly affecting the petitioner's rights and interest in the property. The petitioner also submits that the determination of ownership in tlee suit would directly affect his obligation to pay rent to the rightful owrrer of the propertSr. On these grounds, the revision petitioner sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit. 9 NNN C.R.P. No.568j of 2015 1 1. Though the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the revision petitioner herein is admittedly only a lessee, which is not in dispute, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have already instituted a suit for eviction against the revision petitioner in O.S. No.41 of 2OO9 before the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. It is further submitted that the said suit was decreed by the learned Court on

22.07.2025, granting two (21 months' time for compliance, which period is due to conclude by the end of the present month. Be that as it ffi&y, prima facie, on the face of the record, the revision petitioner is only a lessee. The dispute in O.S. No. 115 of 2005 is between Respondent Nos.l to 6 on one side and Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on the other, wherein Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, as plaintiffs, have sought a declaration of title against Respondent Nos. 7 arrd 8, defendants therein. : ' i I I I I : I I I l ! |, I 10 NNN C.R.P. No.5683 of 2015 L2. Admittedly, the lessee, the revision petitioner, has no role to play in a title dispute between the said respondents. It is well-settled principle of law that any person seeking impleadment must satisfy the court that he is either a necessary party or a proper party. A necessary party is one without whom no effective adjudication can be made and in whose absence the proceedings would be incomplete or infructuous. In contrztst, a proper pafiy is one whose presence may assist in the effective and complete adjudication of the issues, t.hough the suit can be decided even in his absence. In the present case, the admitted position of the petitioner being that of a tenant cleerly indicates that he has no role in the adjudication of the title dispute pending between Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Moreover, as the matter is already at the stage of final arguments, the participation of the revision petitioner in the suit would have no bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. 71 NNN C.R.P. No.5583 of 2015

13. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be treated either as a necessary pafiy or as a proper party to the said suit. Hence, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the ord.er passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the petitioner's application.

14. The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if a.ny, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/. S.MALLIKAJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The l-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SR!. M SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate loPUcI

4. One CC to SRl. SRl. B. NARAYANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SMT. K. PALLAVI Advocate [OPUC] , rwo cD coPies To, M PK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED i2511012025 ./ CRP.No.5683 of 2015 THE S C) 1 E Orc 2u5 * {, DISMISSED tV 16