The main legal principle established in the judgment is the application of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, which allows the Court to add parties to the proceedings to enable effective adjudication and settlement of all questions involved in the suit.

ORDER :

Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against order dated 20.10.2021 in I.A.No.92 of 2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.45 of 2019 against five defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore machinery back in the plaint schedule property.

3. In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that plaintiff No.1, partnership firm was registered on 08.02.2016. It is engaged in the business of quarrying of colour granite, which is marketed in domestic and international markets. Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded mining rights vide proceedings No.52065/R1-1/2011 dated 22.02.2014 in favour of Nibran Nimmala. Lease agreement was entered into vide lease agreement, dated 04.02.2014 for the purpose of quarrying colour granites in an extent of 3.22 hectares or Ac.7.9534 cents, forming part of survey Nos.20, 21, 22/1, 22/2, 23, 23/19, 23/423/2 situated at Palasavalasa village, Bamini Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 04.04.2014 to 03.04.2034. Said Nibran Nimmala entered into ‘raising and selling agreement’ with M/s. PVR Enterprises, plaintiff No.3, represented by its Managing Partner i.e. plaintiff No.2, on 28.03.2014. Plaintiff No.3 invested crores of rupees and also purchased heavy machinery.

(b) Plaintiff No.3 is responsible for entire business of day to day activities by appointing skilled and unskilled workers, accounting, transportation, etc. Plaintiff No.2 and Nibran Nimmala entered into partnership agreement, dated 08.01.2016 agreeing for investment and profit sharing at the rate of 95% : 5% and got registered partnership deed in the name and style of plaintiff No.1, authorizing plaintiff No.2 as its authorized signatory.

(c) Defendants, who have no manner of right, title, interest much less possession, are interfering with day to day mining/quarrying activities being conducted by the plaintiff and his authorized persons in the area allocated. Defendant Nos.4 and 5, at the instigation of defendants No.1 to 3 trespassed into suit schedule premises and removed excavation machines mentioned in ‘B’ schedule property, by threatening the employees. Police complaint was lodged on 25.06.2019. However, no action was initiated. With the above averments, in brief, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 5. In the written statement, it was contended, inter alia, that Nibran Nimmala executed ‘raising and selling agreement’ on 22.08.2013 in favour of K. Hanoku for a period of 20 years for doing business in the suit schedule property. On 04.08.2014, Motaka India and N. Kora also executed lease agreement in favour of K. Hanoku in respect of Ac.3-00 cents in survey No.23/1, which is remaining part of suit schedule property. K. Hanoku and Nibran Nimmala entered into raising and selling agreement with plaintiffs on 28.03.2014 for a period of twenty years. Suppressing all these facts, the above suit is filed for injunction.

5. Plaintiffs along with the suit filed I.A.No.248 of 2019. Court below granted order of status quo. As the matter stood thus, third party i.e. respondent No.1 herein, filed petition I.A.No.92 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead him in the suit as defendant No.6.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended about granting of lease in favour of Nibran Nimmala in respect of suit schedule property for a period of 20 years. It was further pleaded about execution of ‘raising and selling agreement’, dated 22.08.2013 in favour of deponent, K. Hanoku by Nibran Nimmala in respect of suit