( 1 ) THESE two revisions are filed against the orders allowing the applications seeking to implead the respondent No. 3 in I. A. No. 1030 of 1999 and also the main suit o. S. No. 348 of 1999 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge, North and East, Ranga reddy District.

( 2 ) IN support of the applications, it was claimed that the respondent No. 3 herein is a welfare association in respect of the area which covers the subject matter of the suit and it was further alleged that the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner, a trust, is not valid and even the claim of the defendants on the basis of the allotment is not correct. Since the respondent No. 3 has taken up the welfare projects like drinking water scheme etc. , it is a proper and also a necessary party to the suit.

( 3 ) THE said orders were sought to be attacked on the main ground that the suit being one for simpliciter injunction, no application for impleading third parties is permissible as any decree therein would not bind them and further it is always open for the proposed parties to establish their claim by filing a separate suit. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in k. Gangi Reddy vs. Kukkuteswara Swamy temple and also the unreported judgments in C. R,p. No. 2411 of 1988 and C. R. P. No. 1020 of 1993.

( 4 ) IN reply it was contended that since the question virtually embarks upon the rival claims on independent title, the respondent No. 3, who is claiming interest in the subject matter, is a proper and necessary party.

( 5 ) IT is evident from the plaint filed in the main suit in O. S. No. 348 of 1999 that the plaintiff, a trust, claims the suit property on the basis of allotment from the Gram panchayat through their resolutions dated 3-9-1986 and also the subsequent sanction. The plaintiff also filed a suit in O. S. No. 283 of 1999 against four individuals and Uppal municipality for injunction wherein there is an interim order of status quo. However, since the defendants viz. , the District collector and the District Medical and health Officer were making attempts to start construction, the suit was filed. It was also alleged that in the other suit, the plaintiff could not possibly file any impleading petition as against the defendants in this suit as it will only add to delay. Hence a separate suit is being filed.

( 6 ) THUS, even from a bare reading of the plaint it is evident that the plaintiff is seeking its right on the basis of an allotment from the Gram Panchayat.

( 7 ) IN the counter filed in this Court, it was pointed out that the proposed party i. e. , the respondent No. 3 herein is a registered association with Registration certificate No. 2312/97 from the Office of the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad and they claim the suit land in pursuance of an allotment from the Uppal Kalan municipality and also the proceedings of the District Collector dated 10-8-1998 and subsequent handing over of the possession to them. The claim of the plaintiff as to the allotment made through the gram panchayat resolution was denied and further it was stated that the alleged resolution and the proceedings of the gram panchayat are totally bogus.

( 8 ) VIRTUALLY, in the nature of allegations. as spelt out from the pleadings, it necessarily involves an enquiry into the title-both of the plaintiff and the defendants. It cannot be said that in a suit for injunction, the Court cannot go into the question of title incidentally if the Us so warrants. In the fitness of things and in view of the pleas raised by both the parties, it may also warrant for the plaintiff to seek the relief on title. Be that as it may, normally, the proceedings start with the relief of injunction which ultimately lead to a conversion into a declaration of title or even an enquiry into the title. In such a case and especially talcing into consideration the facts of each case, it cannot be said that in an injunction suit, any third party cannot step in. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document