The court may compel the addition of necessary parties to a suit despite the plaintiff's choice, ensuring all interested parties can be adjudicated effectively.

JUDGMENT :

1. Sri Venkata Srujan Vegi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, advanced his arguments through virtual mode.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.443 of 2017 pending in the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit has been filed for decree of declaration to declare the plaintiff having absolute right, title and interest in the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 are defendant Nos.1 to 4.

3. In OS No.443 of 2017 the 1st respondent herein filed IA No.1009 of 2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded. The said application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court by Order dated 29.07.2024 which is under challenge in the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The 1st respondent herein had also filed OS No.792 of 2018, which is pending in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit is for partition, claiming 1/9th share in the suit schedule property. In that suit, the present petitioner is defendant No.11 and the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the defendant Nos.1 to 4.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one more suit was filed by the sister of the present 1st respondent being OS No.1635 of 2015 for partition, which is pending in the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

6. The 1st respondent herein is the daughter of respondent No.2 and the sister of respondent Nos.3 to 5. The plaintiff of OS No.1635 of 2015, namely, D. Krishnaveni, is also so related to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 1st respondent is her sister. D. Krishnaveni is defendant No.8 in OS No.792 of 2018.

7. The case of the present petitioner in his suit OS No.443 of 2017 is that Sri Cheepulla Yellayya, husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit had purchased the said property from Maddula Appalanarasimham, S/o. Ramanayya under registered sale deed dated 28.01.1981. He died. From the defendants of the Suit Nos.1 to 4, one Bheri Bhuvaneswari purchased the said property under registered sale deed dated 30.03.1995. From Bheri Bhuvaneswari, the plaintiff's vendor Sri Barri Venkatarao purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 10.07.1997 and from Barri Venkatarao, the plaintiff/petitioner firm purchased under registered sale deed dated 09.04.2015. In the counter (written statement) of the 3rd defendant in the said suit, a specific plea was taken that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the 3rd defendant had some sisters and they were also entitled to a share in the plaint schedule property.

8. The learned II Additional District Judge on consideration of the pleadings and the other litigation observed that in a suit for declaration of title the right of the plaintiff will be decided basing upon the title of his vendor, and it would mean that the title of the vendor of the plaintiff also has to be considered for better appreciation of the matter. It also observed that admittedly the suit for partition filed by the implead petitioner in OS No.798 of 2018 was pending. In the circumstances, considering the nature of the dispute between the parties as well as the relief claimed, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the presence of the implead petitioner was necessary for complete adjudication of the matter.

9. The learned Trial Court has allowed the application under Orde