Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. - impleading petition by third parties - since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable - as the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit.- Court dismissed their petition.
“It is relevant to note here that the present suit in O.S.No.131/2015 is filed by the plaintiffs not basing on any oral lease, but basing on the registered lease deed, dated 05.03.2012 executed by the plaintiffs herein and the defendant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property. The said registered lease agreement, dated 05.03.2012 was also marked as Ex.A2 in the present suit by the plaintiffs herein. The said circumstances support the contention of the plaintiffs herein that the defendants herein with an intention to protract the present case got filed the present petition through her relatives who are the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties. Moreover, since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable. Considering the said circumstances, the copy of plaint in O.S.NO.192/2017, copy of FIR in Cr.No.197/2017 and legal notice concerned in O.S.192/2017 etc., filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties along with the present petition are also no way helpful to them to substantiate their submission. In the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit. Considering the same, the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (1) in Racharla Thirupathi and others V/s Gundala Shobha Rani and others (reported in 2013(5) ALT 209) that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; so also (2) in Jahangirji and others V/s K.Kumar (reported in 2012(4) ALT 253) the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and is fatal to the suit; and (3) in Taddi Chinnayya, S/o late Narasayya and others V/s Tekumalla Purushottam Rao S/o late Ramarao and others (reported in 2015(4) ALT 476) that a necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable in the suit without whom no effective order can be passed, which are relied by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties, are of no avail to them in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court find no merits in the petition to implead the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties as parties to the present suit in O.S.NO.131/2015; accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are ordered to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the MLSC, Chirala and to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the other side.”
AP HIGH COURT
| CRP/916/2020 | Mallarapu Bhagya Lakshmi |
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.916 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
common order, dated 13.02.2020 in I.A.Nos.200 of 2019 and 201 of
2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioners herein filed I.A.Nos. 200 of 2019 and 201 of
2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Chirala seeking to implead them as defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the suit in
O.S.131 of 2015 as well as in I.A.No.1772 of 2015 under Order I Rule
10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. Initially, the suit in O.S.131 of 2015
was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs against the 3rd respondent herein,
who is arrayed as defendant in the suit. When the suit is at the stage
of pronouncement of judgment after hearing the plaintiffs and
defendant, the proposed parties as petitioners filed this implead
petition claiming that there is a dispute between them and with the
3rd respondent/defendant in this suit and the proposed implead
petitioners further stated that they have also filed another suit for
partition in O.S.No.192 of 2017 against the 3rd respondent herein and
the same is pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Chirala and as such, sought for impleadment in this suit also.
The trial Court after hearing of the parties categorically
observed as follows:-
“It is relevant to note here that the present suit in
O.S.No.131/2015 is filed by the plaintiffs not basing on any
2
oral lease, but basing on the registered lease deed, dated
05.03.2012 executed by the plaintiffs herein and the
defendant herein with respect to the plaint schedule
property. The said registered lease agreement, dated
05.03.2012 was also marked as Ex.A2 in the present suit by
the plaintiffs herein. The said circumstances support the
contention of the plaintiffs herein that the defendants herein
with an intention to protract the present case got filed the
present petition through her relatives who are the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/third parties. Moreover, since there is registered
lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and
the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint
schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint
schedule property herein for monthly lease from the
plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable. Considering the
said circumstances, the copy of plaint in O.S.NO.192/2017,
copy of FIR in Cr.No.197/2017 and legal notice concerned in
O.S.192/2017 etc., filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third
parties along with the present petition are also no way
helpful to them to substantiate their submission. In the said
circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner
Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper
parties to be impleaded in the present suit. Considering the
same, the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad (1) in Racharla Thirupathi and
others V/s Gundala Shobha Rani and others (reported in
2013(5) ALT 209) that a necessary party is one without
whom no order can be made effectively; so also (2) in
Jahangirji and others V/s K.Kumar (reported in 2012(4) ALT
253) the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit
cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and is
fatal to the suit; and (3) in Taddi Chinnayya, S/o late
Narasayya and others V/s Tekumalla Purushottam Rao S/o
late Ramarao and others (reported in 2015(4) ALT 476) that a
necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable in
the suit without whom no effective order can be passed,
which are relied by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties,
are of no avail to them in the instant case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this court find no
merits in the petition to implead the petitioner Nos.1 to
3/third parties as parties to the present suit in
O.S.NO.131/2015; accordingly, these petitions are
dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are ordered to
pay costs of Rs.500/- to the MLSC, Chirala and to pay costs
of Rs.500/- to the other side.”
3
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court
does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the order of
the trial court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Civil Revision
Petition.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
13.08.2020
mp
