Telangana High CourtN. Lakshminarayana vs K.Vijayalaxmi And 9 Others on 11 November, 2022HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU\n\n                       C.R.P.NO.683 of 2022\n\n\nORDER :This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner\n\nunderArticle 227of Constitution of India. The petitioner/plaintiff\n\nin O.S.No.600 of 2015 (old suit O.S.No.1150 of 2008) and\n\nrespondent No.1 in I.A.No.1056 2018 on the file of Senior Civil\n\nJudge, Medchal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of\n\nSenior Civil Judge, Medchal (herein after will be referred as trial\n\nCourt), in the above referred I.A.No.1056 of 2018 by which the\n\ntrial Court allowed the application filed by respondents No.1 to\n\n3/plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and permitted them to be impleaded as\n\nplaintiffs No.2 to 4 in the main suit, filed this revision.2.      I.A.No.1056   of   2018    has   been    filed   by   three\n\npetitioners, who are respondents No.1 to 3 underOrder 1 Rule 10\n\nC.P.C. with a request to permit them to be impleaded as plaintiffs\n\nNo.2 to 4 in O.S.No.600 of 2015 which was filed by the present\n\npetitioner.   In support of the said petition, the respondent No.1,\n\nwho is the petitioner No.1 in the said I.A.No.1056 of 2018 filed her\n\naffidavit.    As per the said affidavit, it is averred that the\n                                     2                               SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022petitioner/plaintiff is the son of one Nemuri Balraj and his second\n\nwife Kousalya, whereas respondents No.1, 2 and one Shantha\n\n(Shanthamma) the wife of respondent No.3 are daughters of said\n\nBalraj through his first wife Pentamma.    Respondents No.1 to 3\n\nhave claimed that Balraj and Pentamma had several immovable\n\nproperties and Late Balraj has procured immovable properties also\n\nin the name of his second wife Kousalya, including the properties\n\nshown in the main suit. The mother of respondents No.1, 2 and\n\nShanthamma, died Intestate by leaving them as her legal heirs.3.    They have further pleaded that the petitioner herein\n\nbeing their brother has filed the main suit for the benefit of\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3/petitioners, but they were not made as\n\nparties to the suit. They have further pleaded that as their rights\n\nover the property are involved in the suit, they are necessary\n\nparties to the main suit.   The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.\n\n9 of 1993 in respect of properties situated at Lothkunta Village and\n\nin the said suit, a Preliminary Decree was passed on 08-09-1993.\n\nHe has filed another suit vide O.S.No.399 of 2004 against\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3 before VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil\n\nCourt, Hyderabad. But he did not assign any reason for not adding\n\nthe respondents as parties in O.S.No.600 of 2015. Therefore, they\n                                      3                              SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022sought for permission to implead themselves as plaintiffs No.\n\n2 to 4.4.    The petitioner herein opposed the said petition, he has\n\nfiled a counter stating that the property shown in the schedule fell\n\nto his share in the family settlement deed dated 28-10-1981 along\n\nwith his brothers. The respondents have admitted the said family\n\nsettlement in O.S.No.399 of 2004. He has denied the claim of the\n\nrespondents that they are female share holders of the property\n\nand while disputing the other averments of the above referred\n\naffidavit, further stated that the respondents/petitioners are not\n\nnecessary parties to the suit. He has also claimed that as per the\n\nfamily settlement, Kousalya got the suit schedule property and it is\n\nsubject matter of O.S.No.399 of 2004. The respondents have filed\n\nI.A.No.1056 of 2018 at the instigation of defendants No.1 to 5 in\n\nthe main suit.     In fact respondents No.1 to 3 were allotted\n\n'I' schedule property i.e., to an extent of 500 Square yards apart\n\nfrom gold, silver and other household articles but suppressing the\n\nabove facts filed the said petition only to harass the petitioner.\n\nTherefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.4                                SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 20225.    The trial Court having heard both parties allowed the\n\npetition and permitted the respondents No.1 to 3/petitioners No.1\n\nto 3 to be impleaded as plaintiffs No.2 to 4 in O.S.No.600 of 2015.6.    The petitioner who is respondent in interlocutory\n\napplication and plaintiff in the main suit, filed the present revision\n\non the following grounds.7.    The petitioner has claimed that the trial Court ought to\n\nhave seen that respondents No.1 to 3 are not proper and\n\nnecessary parties to the suit, they have no locus-standi to be\n\nadded as plaintiffs. The trial Court should have seen that the relief\n\nclaimed by the petitioner herein is against defendants thereby, no\n\nother 3rd party can be impleaded as plaintiff in the main suit to\n\nenlarge the scope of the suit. He has also claimed that if there is\n\nany dispute in between the petitioner and proposed parties, it\n\nmust be worked out elsewhere but not in the present suit.8.    The petitioner further claimed that the trial Court\n\nought to have observed that the presence of proposed plaintiffs is\n\nnot necessary and their presence cannot decide the "lis", pending\n\nbetween the petitioner and defendants on record. The main suit\n\ncan   be   disposed   effectively   even   without   impleading          the\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3 as parties to the suit.        If the proposed\n                                         5                                    SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022plaintiffs are added, the scope of litigation will be expanded and\n\ndefendants therein will take an advantage of the situation.9.    The petitioner further stated that in the main suit, the\n\nevidence of the plaintiff as well as the defendants was already\n\nrecorded. The suit stands posted for examination of witnesses on\n\nbehalf of the defendant No.3, who is Tahasildar.             Therefore, if a\n\n3rd party is added to the suit, at that stage, it is nothing but\n\nre-opening the suit for denova trial. He has also claimed that the\n\ntrial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3 against the wishes of original plaintiff\n\nthereby, the order passed by the trial Court is a material illegality\n\nand irregularity, as such sought for setting aside the order.10.   Heard both parties.11.   Now the points for consideration are :1.    Whether the respondents No.1 to 3 are proper and\n                  necessary parties, if so, can they be impleaded as plaintiffs\n                  No.2 to 4 to the main suit?2.    Whether the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside\n                  on the grounds raised by the petitioner/plaintiff?12.   The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted\n\nthat there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties.\n\nEven according to the averments made in the previous litigation\n                                      6                                SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022and as per the affidavit filed in support of the petition, Late Balraj\n\nhas got two wives. Respondents No.1, 2 and their sister Shantha\n\nare daughters of Balraj through his first wife Pentamma.                The\n\npetitioner herein is son of Balraj through his second wife Kousalya.\n\nThere was a settlement between all the family members and as\n\nper the admitted case of proposed parties, shares were already\n\nallotted among the children and other family members of Balraj.\n\nThe property shown in the schedule of O.S.No.600 of 2015 was\n\nexclusively purchased by Kousalya thereby, the proposed parties\n\nhave no right to claim any share.        He has further argued that\n\nO.S.No.600 of 2015 was not filed for partition of joint family\n\nproperties but it was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against\n\ndefendants therein for declaration of a particular document as null\n\nand void, not binding the plaintiff. The reliefs sought for in\n\nO.S.No.600 of 2015 are completely different to the claims of\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3. The petitioner did not sought for any relief\n\nagainst the proposed parties.        He has also submitted even\n\notherwise, the petitioner who is master of his own suit cannot be\n\nforced to amend the suit by impleading the respondents No.1 to 3\n\nas plaintiffs No.2 to 4 because such amendment will enlarge the\n\nscope of the suit.7                                   SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 202213.   The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted\n\nthat since there is no dispute about the relationship between\n\npetitioner and respondents No.1 to 3 and as the property shown in\n\nthe plaint schedule is a joint family property, the proposed\n\nplaintiffs have got right to implead themselves as plaintiffs No.2\n\nto 4. He has also argued that in the present revision which is filed\n\nunderArticle 227of Constitution of India, the scope is very limited.\n\nThe order of the trial Court cannot be set aside under the\n\nrevisional jurisdiction of this Court underSection 115of Civil\n\nProcedure Code or underArticle 227of Constitution of India.\n\nWhen this Court wanted to know from the learned counsel as to\n\nhow an application underOrder 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. without any\n\nconsequential amendment annexed, as required under Rule 28 of\n\nCivil Rules of Practice is maintainable, the learned counsel\n\nvehemently argued that there may not be any serious amendment\n\nof the plaint except adding the respondents No.1 to 3 as plaintiffs\n\nNo.2 to 4, therefore, the absence of any consequential amendment\n\nalong with petition filed under order 1Rule 10 C.P.C. may not\n\ncause any prejudice to the contentions of the respondents No.1 to\n\n3 thereby, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.8                                   SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 202214.    Both the parties i.e., petitioner herein and proposed\n\nplaintiffs    have   claimed   earlier   there   were   suits     and       other\n\nproceedings between the children of Balraj born to his first wife\n\nPentamma, and second wife Kousalya. The respondents No.1 to 3\n\nwanted to come on record as plaintiffs No.2 to 4 on the main\n\nground that their right over joint family property is involved in the\n\nsuit. In view of this particular stand taken by the plaintiffs, it is\n\njust and necessary to verify what is the case of petitioner in\n\nO.S.No.1150 of 2008. As per the averments made in O.S.No.1150\n\nof 2008, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the said suit for\n\ndeclaration to declare a sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to\n\n3 on 16-07-2007 as null and void and not binding the plaintiff with\n\na consequential relief of direction, defendant No.8 to hand over\n\nphysical possession of the property to the plaintiff.           He has also\n\nsought for eviction of defendants No.1 to 5 or any person claiming\n\nright on the suit schedule property through defendants No.1 to 5.\n\nHe has sought for a direction to the defendant No.6, M.R.O. to\n\nmutate the name of plaintiff in the Revenue Records. The\n\npetitioner/plaintiff sought for a direction to restrain defendant\n\nNo.7,    Sub-Registrar,    Shameerpet,       from   registering       the      suit\n\nschedule property at the instance of defendants No.1 to 5.9                                SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 202215.    As per the plaint averments vide para No.8 of the\n\nplaint, the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that one Nemuri Sailu\n\ninherited different extents of land from different survey numbers,\n\nafter the death of said Sailu all such properties devolved upon his\n\nson namely N. Balrajaiah Goud, who is the father of plaintiff and\n\nsaid Balrajaiah Goud, who was a Excise Contractor incurred losses\n\nin his business and could not pay the amount due to the\n\nGovernment.     Therefore, the Government conducted the auction\n\nfor the sale of his share in the land.           In the said auction,\n\nEeswaraiah and B.Chandraiah purchased the properties from\n\nSy.Nos.739, 740, 760-B, 762, 763 and they in turn sold all the\n\nproperties in favour of Kousalya, the mother of petitioner/plaintiff.\n\nIn view of these pleadings, the petitioner claims an exclusive right\n\non the properties shown in the suit schedule. There may be some\n\nother suits between petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/proposed\n\nplaintiffs.   O.S.No.600   of   2015       has   been   filed     by       the\n\npetitioner/plaintiff on the ground that his mother acquired all the\n\nsuit schedule properties under a registered sale deed. He has filed\n\nan application before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of his\n\nname.     He has also pleaded that inspite of a family settlement\n\nagreement between the parties, the defendants No.1 to 5 in the\n                                              10                                    SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022main suit started dealing with the properties and executing sale\n\ndeeds in favour of 3rd parties thereby, he prayed for declaration to\n\ndeclare such sale deeds as void apart from seeking other\n\nconsequential reliefs.16.      The trial Court disposed the application filed by\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3 vide its order dated 22-01-2022. A perusal\n\nof the order would show the trial Court extracted the averments\n\nmade in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, counter affidavit as\n\nwell as the averments of the main suit, disposed the interlocutory\n\napplication by observing that by virtue ofOrder 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.,\n\nthe presence of impleading party is just and essential to answer\n\nthe real issue is in question.               The Court below allowed the\n\napplication by a single sentence to the effect that when the\n\nrelationship of petitioners is not disputed by petitioner/plaintiff,\n\nthere is a contentious issue between the plaintiffs including the\n\nproposed plaintiffs, thereby they can be impleaded as parties to\n\nthe suit.17.      The petition filed by respondents No.1 to 3 was underOrder 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which reads as follows :"Suit in the Name of wrong plaintiff, The general rule in\n            regard to prosecution of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit,\n            be dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he\n            wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person\n                                               11                                    SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently a,\n              person who is not a party has no right to be prosecuted\n              against the wishes of the Plaintiff, But this general rule is\n              subject to the Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2)of the Code of\n              Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for dominus litis of\n              proper or necessary parties Suit in the Name of wrong\n              plaintiff".18.     A perusal of the above provision would indicate that\n\nthe Court on its own motion or upon on application filed by a\n\nparty, permit them to be impleaded as plaintiff only on the ground\n\nthat the presence of the proposed party is very much essential for\n\ncomplete          and     effective   adjudication    of    the   main       dispute.\n\nTherefore, in order to appreciate the application filed by the\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3, it must be established before the trial Court\n\nthat the presence of the proposed parties more particularly, as\n\nplaintiffs No.2 to 4 is required for complete and effective\n\nadjudication of the main suit.19.In a Judgment between "Varanasi Madhava Rao Vs.\n\nNarayansetti Govind Rajulu & Ors."1, the High Court of Andhra\n\nPradesh made an observation that :"If there is a specific averment on behalf of the petitioner/\n          plaintiff and defendants in the suit colluded to harm the interest of\n          proposed parties, they can be impleaded as parties to the suit and11999 (3) A.P.L.J. 230 (HC)\n                                                12                                 SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022it is to avoid multiplicity of the suit and give finality to the\n\n          litigation".20.     In view of the specific averments made in the plaint\n\nand in view of the affidavit filed in support of the application of the\n\nproposed plaintiffs even if the respondents No.1 to 3 are added as\n\nplaintiffs, such presence cannot decide the disputes between the\n\nparties and since the main suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for\n\na specific relief, that sale deeds executed by defendants No.1 to 3\n\nare not binding upon him. The presence of the proposed parties as\n\nplaintiffs No.2 to 4 is not at all required.21.In     another     Judgment       between    "Prakash           Rao\n\nDandgey Vs. Sathyanarayana Dandgey"2, this High Court\n\nmade an observation that :"The power of the Court to order amendment of the\n          pleadings is confined to allowing a party to alter or amend his own\n          pleadings.     This provision does not confer power on the Court to\n          allow an impleaded party to amend or alter the pleadings of\n          another party already on record".22.     The said order was passed in a revision petition filed\n\nagainst the order in I.A.No.607 of 2007 filed under Order 1 Rule\n\n10 r/wSection 151C.P.C. and Rule 28 of A.P. Civil Rules of2(2014) 6 ALD 461\n                                               13                                   SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022Practice with a request to implead petitioner in the above\n\ninterlocutory application as plaintiff in the suit and for a\n\nconsequential relief of amendment of the plaint. Even though the\n\napplication was opposed by the petitioner who is defendant in the\n\nmain suit, the trial Court allowed the application. The Court made\n\nan observation that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. permits a party to\n\nseek the relief of amendment of pleadings as also consequential\n\nrelief in an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.23.In another Judgment between "Major P.T. Choudary\n\nVs. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Khan and others"3, while\n\ndisposing a Civil Revision Petition against the order of a trial Court\n\nin an interlocutory application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w\n\norder 22 Rule 10 andSection 151C.P.C., this Court made an\n\nobservation that\n\n                 "If a 3rd party is aggrieved by the suit pending between\n          plaintiff and defendant can file a separate suit and this order will\n          not come in their way provided there was a cause of action".24.    In another Judgment between "Devarapu Padma\n\nand others             Vs.   Guntur    Teacher's      Housing Cooperative\n\nBuilding Society"4, the Judgment referred above is almost on the3(2007) 2 ALD 6754(2013) 6 ALD 567\n                                                 14                                  SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022same lines of the present case. In this Judgment, some 3rd parties\n\nhave invokedOrder 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and sought to be impleaded\n\nas plaintiffs to a suit. The said application was allowed by the trial\n\nCourt permitting them to be impleaded as parties to the main suit.\n\nAggrieved     by    the    plaintiff,       this     Court   made   the     following\n\nobservations:"It is not uncommon that applications are filed to implead\n   strangers, as parties to the suit.        However, filing of an application to\n   implead an individual as the plaintiff is almost a rarity.        It would be\n   possible only when an individual who does not have any independent\n   identity, but is sailing with the plaintiffs in all respects and is not\n   claiming any individual claims. In such an extent, he can be impleaded\n   as plaintiff, that too at his request.In certain cases, in addition to the plaintiffs, who were already on\n   record, some of the defendants may be transposed as the plaintiffs or\n   the third parties also can be added as plaintiffs. Wherever such steps are\n   taken, no independent relief can be claimed on behalf of the persons\n   who were newly added as the plaintiffs. They must sail with the existing\n   plaintiffs on record. In this case, however, separate reliefs are sought to\n   be claimed on behalf of each of the persons sought to be added as\n   plaintiffs. For all practical purposes, if each plaintiff, who is sought to be\n   added, will be claiming individual and independent relief for him, the\n\n   question of limitation, court fee and other aspects would arise".25.     The Court further observed as follows :"By no stretch of imagination, the relief of impleading strangers,\n   as parties to the suit, that too as the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and\n   amendment of the plaint on the other, can be treated as interconnected\n                                            15                                  SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022with each other.     The order under revision passed by the trial Court\n   cannot be sustained in law.26.    The record further shows that the petition filed by the\n\nrespondents No.1 to 3 underOrder 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed at\n\nthe fag end of the trial. As per the counter filed by the petitioner\n\nherein, it is very clear that the evidence of both parties were\n\nalready recorded.27.    As per the pleadings placed before the Court and\n\naccording to the other record relied on by both parties, it is true\n\nthat the petitioner/plaintiff claims right on some landed properties\n\nby virtue of registered sale deed executed in favour of his mother\n\nwhereas, the proposed parties, who are children of Balraj through\n\nhis first wife Pentamma have claimed that their father procured\n\nsome properties in the name of Kousalya, the mother of the\n\npetitioner/plaintiff,    thereby    they    have   got   right   over        those\n\nproperties and as the said properties are shown in the plaint\n\nschedule, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. They\n\ndid not explain any cause of action as to how they can be added as\n\nplaintiffs to the suit by enlarging the scope of plaint which is filed\n\nagainst the defendants for a specific purpose for declaration of sale\n\ndeeds executed by plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are not binding the plaintiff.16                               SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022It is not the case of respondents No.1 to 3 that the above referred\n\nsale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 5 are not binding on\n\nthem, they cannot claim such a declaration without any supporting\n\nplaint averments, the entire suit is filed on the basis of a particular\n\ncause of action which respondents No.1 to 3 cannot adopt. They\n\nhave not explained as to how a decree if passed in favour of the\n\npetitioner/plaintiff would effect their rights. If really they are being\n\naggrieved by the act of the petitioner/plaintiff, they have to file a\n\nseparate suit even though it is multiplicity of proceedings.           They\n\ncannot claim an order for their addition as plaintiffs to the suit filed\n\nby the petitioner/plaintiff herein.28.   In the result, petition is dismissed.Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.\nThere shall be no order as to costs.__________________________\n                                JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU\n\nDate: 11.11.2022\nPLV\n 17                 SSRN,JC.R.P. No.683 of 2022