Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Kathi David Raju, S/o Late Yedukondalu – Appellant
Versus
Ramavath Krishna Naik, S/o gopa Naik
Civil Revision Petition No.2097 of 2022
Decided on : 08-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10- Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 -Section 17 - Suit in name of wrong plaintiff -Whether proposed parties are proper and necessary to adjudicate lis in suit basing on facts of each case –Held, Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within limits of jurisdiction of subordinate courts or tribunals - Exercise of this power and interfering with orders of courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected - It is also well settled that High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on face of record - High Court can set aside or ignore findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which court or tribunal has come to - Accordingly dismissed.
ORDER :
Plaintiff, in the suit filed, the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 30.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.110 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur.
2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.110 of 2018 to declare that plaintiff’s name is Kathi David Raju, S/o late Yedukondalu, but not Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Venkata Kotaiah and that Kathi David Raju and Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu are different persons as per the educational certificates.
3. Defendants filed written statement and are contesting the suit.
4. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.107 of 2020 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add respondent Nos.3 to 13 as defendant Nos.3 to 13 in the main suit and in subsequent petitions.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that respondent No.4, District Collector passed order vide R.C.No.14/2016/C4, dated 18.02.2020; that respondent No.5, Joint Collector and Chairman DLSC, Guntur District gave findings on caste enquiry report; that respondent Nos.6 and 7, subordinates of respondent Nos.4 and 5, participated in the enquiry; that respondent Nos.6 and 7 colluded with respondent No.1 and arranged respondent No.3, Kathi John/Chinna John and lured him to give false statement against the petitioner; that respondent Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other and filed a fake crime in Bapatla Police Station against the petitioner stating that petitioner changed his name and fraudulently obtained fake caste certificate; that respondent No.8 is employer of the petitioner; that respondent Nos.9 to 13 are sub-ordinates of respondent No.8; that when the suit is pending, respondent No.8 issued charge sheet, dated 09.03.2020 to the petitioner on the basis of notification issued by respondent No.4; that one of the charges in the charge sheet issued by respondent No.8 is that the petitioner obtained ST Yanadi caste certificate fraudulently basing on the transfer certificate belonging to another person by name Kathi John David @ David Raju, S/o Yedukondalu, the subject matter in the suit; that W.P.No.6576 of 2020 was filed before the High Court against respondent No.4 and High Court granted stay in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and the same is being extended from time to time; that petitioner submitted explanation to respondent No.8 on 18.03.2020 through proper channel; that respondent Nos.8 to 13 did not stop further proceedings and started departmental enquiry; that if the matter is decided against the petitioner, it may contradict and cause loss to the petitioner; that respondent Nos.3 to 13 are necessary parties to the suit proceedings and hence filed petition to implead respondent Nos.3 to 13 as party defendants to the suit.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter it was contended inter alia that though plaintiff belongs to Telaga (O.C.) caste, he assumed the name of S.T. by name Kathi David Raju, obtained study certificate by impersonating said Kathi David Raju and got job by cheating the Government; that under Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and the proposed parties are not necessary parties and thus, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Respondent No.6 filed separate counter and contended interalia about petitioner’s securing job by obtaining false certificate, etc.
8. By order, dated 30.08.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
9. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. He would also contend that the name of the petitioner is Katti David Raju, but not Imadabathini Veeran
