SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
Racharla Thirupathi and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Gundala Shobha Rani and Ors. —Respondents
C.R.P. No. 2303 of 2013
Decided on 24.7.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. P. Hari Prasad, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts are generally loath to permit impleadment of parties in injunction suits.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 1 Rule 10(2)—Impleadment of necessary party in suit—Main criterion for addition of parties is to enable Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in suit—Whether a person is a necessary or a proper party depends upon nature of dispute raised and relief claimed by plaintiff—Relief of injunction is personal against person and those who claim through him—Such injunction orders do not bind third parties—Courts are generally loath to permit impleadment of parties in injunction suits—If a third party has any apprehension that he will be deprived of property, he can always file a substantive suit against person who in his opinion is likely to evict him in guise of an order or decree for injunction—However, no law has been laid down in absolute terms that in an injunction suit, a third party cannot be impleaded. (Paras 5 to 7)

       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 1 Rule 10—Impleadment of necessary party in suit—Petitioners have specifically pleaded that they have purchased plots—For mere fact that petitioners did not specify as to in which of two survey numbers their plots have fallen, they cannot be non-suited—This aspect needs to be necessarily adjudicated in suit itself—Having regard to averments on which petitioners filed application for their impleadment, it cannot be denied that they have direct interest in subject matter of suit—As to what extent they have interest and whether respondent/plaintiff is entitled to grant of injunction or not, need to be examined in suit—Even if petitioners are not necessary parties, surely, they are proper parties—Petitioners deserved to be impleaded as defendants in suit. (Para 11)

       Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.

ORDER

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.— This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14.3.2013 in I.A.No.1076/2012 in O.S.No.59/2009 on the file of the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. The petitioners are third parties to the above mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect ofAc.2-20 cents of land in Survey.No.533/A2 of Bheemaram village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from interfering with the respondent No.l/plaintiff’s possession over the property. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that she has purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of one Devadas and one Ranadheer Reddy under registered sale deed dated 4.4.2006. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1076/2012 in the said suit inter alia with the plea that their vendors have purchased the properties under registered sale deeds dated 31.12.1998 from Bokka Devadas and that they have in turn sold the properties to the petitioners on different dates in 2009 and 2010. It is their further case that they were not aware of the filing and pendency of the abovementioned suit till date; that they have noticed a newspaper publication in Saakshi Telugu Daily on 1.11.2012 calling for objections for granting of construction permission in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit property and that immediately thereafter, they have filed the I.A. for their impleadment in the suit.

3. Respondent No. l/plaintiff contested the said application by filing a counter-affidavit. By order dated 14.3.2013, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application.

4. The main ground on which the lower Court dismissed the petitioners application for their impleadment in the suit is that they failed to specifically point out as to where their plots fall in Sy.No.532 or 533 and that as no relief has been claimed against the petitioners by respondent No.1/plaintiff, they are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the suit.

5. Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC confers discretion on the Court, either to strike out or add parties, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of any party. The main criterion for addition of parties is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Whether a person is a necessary or a proper party depends upon the nature of the dispute raised and the relief claimed by the plaintiff.

6. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786. the Supreme Court has drawn a subtle distinction between a ‘necessary’ and a ‘proper party’. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment, at para-7, hereunder:

“... A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”

7. The relief of injunction is personal against the person and those who claim through him. Such injunction orders therefore do not bind third parties. This is the reason why the Courts are generally loath to permit impleadment of parties in injunction suits. If a third party has any apprehension that he will be deprived of the property, he can always file a substantive suit against the person who in his opinion is likely to evict him in the guise of an order or decree for injunction. However, no law has been laid down in absolute terms that in an injunction suit, a third party cannot be impleaded.

8. In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, 1995(3) SCC 147. while dealing with the scope of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, the Supreme Court held as under:

“The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may b











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top