Point of Law: suit relating to property, in order to add a person as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation.

ORDER :

The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.165 of 2016 in O.S.No.343 of 2015 by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, wherein the petition filed by third party under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) for impleading himself as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.343 of 2015 was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are:

The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.343 of 2015 against respondent No.2/defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction as respondent No.2/defendant has been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. On coming to know about the same, respondent No.1 herein who is proposed party filed an application under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to implead Muthyalamma Temple Committee represented by its President as defendant No.2 alleging that the plaint A and B schedule properties belong to Muthyalamma Temple and plaint A schedule property consists of two rooms which were being used by the family of poojari. The mother of the petitioners/plaintiffs used to look after the deepa, dhoopa nyvedyam of Muthyalamma Temple and after her death the petitioners/plaintiffs with an evil intention to grab the suit schedule A and B properties which belong to the Temple created a fictitious story as if the properties belong to respondent No.2’s/defendant’s family, who had permitted the mother of the petitioners/plaintiffs to attend maintenance of the Temple and the petitioners’/plaintiffs’ mother raised two RCC rooms in ‘A’ schedule property who in turn executed Will dated 26.08.2006 which came into existence after her death on 25.10.2008. It is also stated in the affidavit that even as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs their mother is in permissive possession of the property, as such she has no right to execute any Will in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. But, the petitioners/plaintiffs in collusion with respondent No.2/defendant filed the suit by creating a wrong cause of action with an intention to grab the suit schedule property and in pursuance of said collusion respondent No.2/ defendant expressed ‘no objection’ to give the property to the petitioners/plaintiffs. It is thus, clear that the petitioners/plaintiffs are trying to obtain a collusive decree by suppressing true facts. The third party who is President of Muthyalamma Temple has approached the Court by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to protect the rights of the Temple over the suit schedule property and to stop the petitioners/plaintiffs from obtaining a collusive decree. The Court below allowed the said application observing that with a view to stop multiplicity of litigation even in a suit filed for permanent injunction. If the third party is impleaded no prejudice or any loss or damage will be caused to the respondents.

3. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contends that the petitioners/plaintiffs are dominus litis and hence, they can choose against whom they want to contest the matter. If a third party is aggrieved by any of the actions, he should prefer an independent suit and he cannot be impleaded in a suit filed for permanent injunction. He further submits that impleaded party has stated several things in the affidavit filed in support of the petition but no document is filed to show the ownership of Mutyalamma Temple Committee over the suit schedule property. He submits that without any proper reasons, the Court below reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit and allowed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that in a suit for permanent injunction third party cannot be impleaded particularly when the petitioners/plaintiffs have not pleaded