The Court ruled that a proposed party's impleadment is unnecessary unless it is vital for adjudicating the suit's core issues, emphasizing the distinction between necessary and proper parties under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order dated 06.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby and whereunder, petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to add the proposed party as defendant No.7, was dismissed.

2. Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the defendant Nos.1 to 6, in O.S.No.3 of 2018 and respondent No.7 is the proposed party. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 for the reliefs of (i) declaration, to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, consequentially to restrain the defendants and their men and associates form interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the schedule property by means of Permanent Injunction, and (ii) to direct the concerned for correction of entries in revenue record by entering the names of plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property and for costs.

4. During pendency of suit proceedings, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.72 of 2025 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking the trial Court to implead one Peram Thanuj Yaswanth Reddy, who is arrayed as proposed respondent No.7 in the said application, as defendant No.7 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the ground that defendant No.2 executed nominal deed in favour of proposed party in respect of schedule property and therefore, the said proposed party is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings.

5. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and proposed party filed their respective counters in the said application, denying the allegations levelled the petition-affidavit contending inter alia that the defendant No.2 never executed nominal deed in favour of proposed party in respect of schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and the allegation was vague and the same was created and concocted story for the purpose of filing the application. It was further contended that the petition is not maintainable without furnishing the particulars of document and schedule property.

6. The trial Court vide Order dated 06.03.2025 dismissed the I.A.No.72 of 2025. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: (paragraph Nos.4 and 5)

“4. This Court find force in the said contention of respondents/defendants including proposed respondent No.7/ defendant No.7. Though the petitioners/plaintiffs have stated in the petition that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has executed nominal deed in favour of proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 for the suit property, neither the nature of the said document nor date of the execution of the document was mentioned in the petition, so also the copy of the alleged document also not annexed with the present petition. Having considered the same, the petitioner filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is a vague one. Moreover, the respondents/ defendants including the proposed respondent No.7/defendant No.7 have contended that no such nominal document was executed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 as alleged by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in the petition. Having considered the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is devoid of merit.

5. It is relevant