ORDER :

D. Ramesh, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, under article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2020 passed in I.A. No. 396 of 2017 in L.R.A. 1 of 2016 on the file of Land Reforms Appellant Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The petitioner is the appellant, he filed an appeal in L.R.A. 1 of 2016 aggrieved by the order of Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni dated 04.10.2016. In the said appeal, the respondents third parties have filed an I.A. No. 396 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with rule 28 of CPC to implead them as respondents 3 to 10 in the main appeal. Said I.A. is allowed by the Land Reforms Appellant Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that order of the court below is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 [for short "the Act, 1973"]. On facts, the respondents 1 to 7 herein are not in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and they are nothing to do with the land ceiling proceedings. The land ceiling proceedings are between the petitioner herein and the respondents 9 to 11. The respondents 9 to 11 are the original claimants even before the declaration proceedings, the subject property is alienated to the petitioner herein and the petitioner is in continuous possession of the subject property. Without considering the objection filed by the petitioner, the court below has passed the order erroneously to implead the proposed respondents as parties to the L.R.A. No. 1 of 2016. The court below has failed to appreciate the order passed in W.P. No. 2383 of 2004, W.A. No. 561 of 2015, the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Adoni, so also the prayer in W.P. No. 1516 of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 to 7 herein, praying for grant of possession, which was subsequently withdrawn by them unconditionally. The above said orders and proceedings categorically established that the respondents 1 to 7 are not in possession of subject land and no possession was delivered to them under the alleged pattas, hence they are not the interested parties as per Rule 16(7) of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 [for short "the Rules, 1974"].

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that until and unless the parties are proved that they have substantial interest in the property, they cannot be impleaded as parties to the substantial proceedings. Hence, the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1973 and the Rules made there under.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to support his contentions has mainly relied on the Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code [for short 'CPC'], which is extracted below:-

Order I Rule 10 of CPC:

"10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.-(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involve