The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide discretion of the court to allow the impleadment of parties and consequential amendments of pleadings for effective determination of the issues involved in the suit.

ORDER :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. C.R.P. No. 768 of 2020 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 02.01.2020, passed in I.A. No. 679 of 2016 in O.S. No. 657 of 2009 on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the proposed respondents as defendants 3 to 5 in the main suit, was dismissed.

2. C.R.P. No. 767 of 2020 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 02.01.2020, passed in I.A. No. 680 of 2016 in O.S. No. 657 of 2009 on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to permit him to carry out the amendment to the plaint, was dismissed.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The facts in brevity are as under:

The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 657 of 2009 seeking to declare him as the absolute owner of the suit scheduled property bearing No. 3-2-351, admeasuring 740 square yards, comprising of old house, rooms and a shed bounded by compound wall and gate situated at Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property, creating third party interest, changing the physical structure and interfering with the peaceful possession of the same. During pendency of the suit i.e., in the year 2013, the proposed respondents came to the petitioner/plaintiff stating that they are the owners of the property having purchased the same from the father of the defendants and furnished copies of registered sale deeds and in turn the plaintiff informed them that he has already filed the declaration suit in O.S. No. 657 of 2009 against the defendants and also obtained interim injunction vide orders in I.A. Nos. 3440 and 2441 of 2009 and the same are subsisting. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2311 of 2013 seeking to implead the proposed respondents as defendants 3 to 5, which was allowed on 17.07.2014 and aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 and 2 preferred C.R.P. No. 3276 of 2014 before this Court. By an order, 27.03.2015, this Court disposed of the said C.R.P., granting liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to file a fresh application for adding the proposed respondents as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit and to seek consequential amendment of the pleadings including the prayer clause. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above two petitions to implead the proposed respondents as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit and to permit him to carry out the amendment to the plaint as mentioned in the petition.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the defendants 1 and 2, filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the petitions are not at all maintainable as the petitioner/plaintiff on one hand states that his father purchased the scheduled property and on the other hand, he became the owner by adverse possession; that they are not aware of the complaint lodged to the Commissioner of Police and that they got issued legal notice to the petitioner/plaintiff through their Counsel and got reply notice. It is also stated that respondents 1 and 2 did not file R.C. No. 274 of 2009 before the IV-Additional Rent Controller and in fact, the petitioner/plaintiff is a tenant only in a North-eastern portion of the suit scheduled property consisting of two rooms and the remaining portion on the western side of the suit scheduled property is in actual physical possession of the respondents 1 and 2, in which another tenant by name Jeevan Jyothi Dyeing and Printing Works, was in possession as tenant. It is further stated in the counter that the allegation that N. Suresh and N. Ganesh threatened him that they are the owners of the property is absolutely false one and their claim is based on forged documents. Therefore, there is no need to implead the proposed respondents