Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 185

LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Sathuluri John Saheb – Appellant
Versus
Shaik Hussainpeera Rep. ,By K. Srinivasa Rao – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J Ugranarasimha
For the Respondent: C Raghu, Gp For Arbitration (Ap),C Raghu

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether a purchaser who claims through a private party with no saleable interest is a necessary or proper party in a suit for permanent injunction against the Government when the property admittedly belongs to the Government?

Question 2?

What is the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead a third party as a necessary or proper party in a suit for injunction against the Government, and when should such impleadment be refused to avoid multiplicity or ruse?

Question 3?

What considerations govern whether a person who obtained a decree from a prior private sale can be impleaded as a party in a Government-involving property dispute and when their presence is or is not necessary for adjudication?

ORDER :

The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2013 passed in I.A.No.109 of 2012 in O.S.No.332 of 2011 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District whereby the petition filed by the proposed party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to implead himself as proper and necessary party was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are:

Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e. D.No.108/5 of Gunta Garlapadu village, Issapalem Gram Panchayat, Narasaraopet Mandal. The case of the petitioner is that he filed O.S.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet basing on an agreement of sale dated 17.07.2007 executed by one Shaik Meerabi as well as her endorsement thereon dated 24.04.2008 by receiving full consideration from the petitioner and the said suit was decreed on 27.07.2011. As the petitioner purchased the plaint schedule property from Shaik Meerabi the petitioner is proper an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document