IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion to allow amendments and addition of parties, emphasizing the necessity for effective adjudication and that the cause of action was continuous, thus not barred by limitation.

ORDER :

1. These revisions emanate from the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, in I.A. No. 318 of 2023, and order of even date in I.A. No. 319 of 2023, in O.S. No. 148 of 2022.

I.A. No. 318 of 2023 was filed praying the Court to implead proposed respondents 3 to 6 as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit. Likewise, I.A. No. 319 of 2023 was filed praying to permit the plaintiff to amend the prayer in the plaint. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court with these revisions, raising several grounds. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. A.P. Suresh Ram, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit OS No. 148 of 2022 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 and one S. Bachi Reddy (proposed defendant No. 3) played criminal mischief on the deceased (S. Anthamma) by forging a SadaBainama (un-registered Gift Deed) alleged to have been executed by the deceased Anthamma on 26.12.1983 and got the said unregistered Gift Deed validated in the year 1994 through proceedings dated 02.07.1994 issued by the Tahsildar (proposed defendant No. 4), and therefore the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional Officer (proposed defendant No. 5), and the District Collector (proposed defendant No. 6) are proper and necessary parties to the suit and prayed the Court to add them as defendant Nos. 3 to 6, respectively. The plaintiff also challenged the legality of the unregistered Gift Deed.

4. The trial Court, by separate orders dated 05.12.2023, allowed both the applications. Challenging the same, the defendants 1 and 2 filed the present revision petitions.

5. The crux of the contention of defendants is that the plaintiff had knowledge of contested Sada Bainama (unregistered Gift Deed) in the year 2014 itself, as the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 318 of 2023 would disclose the statement of plaintiff wherein he stated that he had brought to the notice of his previous counsel about the alleged forged Sada Bainama/unregistered Gift Deed but his counsel failed to challenge the forged Sada Bainama. The defendants therefore contend that the plaintiff having knowledge of the Sada Bainama, laying challenge to the same after 30 years, is hit by Article 58 of Limitation Act.

6. The defendants also contend that the trial Court ought to have considered the written arguments of defendants, in view of the judgment in G. Jaya Rao v. State of A.P. Land Reforms, Srikakulam, 2003 (3) ALT 127 however the trial Court failed to consider the same, and therefore the impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 passed in both Interlocutory Applications are bad in law, and the same are liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 3109 and Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy, AIR 1993 SC 2324.

8. In Regency Convention (2 supra), wherein there was a contest to adding a party on the ground that the proposed party therein was neither proper nor necessary to the suit, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him against the wishes of the plaintiff, and the fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.

9. In Karuppaswamy (supra), the subject matter was with regard to the limitation and the date from which it deserves computation. It was observed by the