Penchala Devender, S/o.Madhav vs Bandaru Prabhakar, S/o.Laxminarayana

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 - Impleadment of parties - Necessary and Proper party - Concept of dominus litis - In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is the master of the case and may choose the persons against whom they intend to seek relief. A person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are a necessary or proper party. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Necessary Party vs. Proper Party - A "necessary party" is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by the court. A "proper party" is one whose presence enables the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute, though a decree need not be made in their favor or against them. If a person is neither, the court has no jurisdiction to implead them against the plaintiff's wishes. (Para 10)

(C) Scope of Suit for Permanent Injunction - In such a suit, title can be considered incidentally to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, but title cannot be formally decided. Impleading a party to ascertain rights over property based on agreements or awards would impermissibly enlarge the scope of an injunction suit. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and ownership of the suit schedule property and to prevent alienation. During the pendency of the suit, a third party applied to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming a right to a portion of the property based on an oral agreement and a panchayat award. The trial court allowed the application to avoid multiplicity of litigation and citing a prima facie lis pending between the parties.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the proposed party was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The claims based on an agreement or panchayat award could not be adjudicated within a suit for permanent injunction, and allowing such impleadment would expand the scope of the litigation beyond its original nature.

Issues: Whether the proposed party was a necessary and proper party to be impleaded as a defendant and whether the trial court committed an error in allowing the impleadment application.

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, being dominus litis, has the prerogative to choose the parties against whom relief is sought. Since the proposed party's rights could not be adjudicated in a suit for permanent injunction and the party had already approached the court in a separate suit for declaration, impleadment was not justified as it would broaden the scope of the current suit.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 25.01.2019 set aside.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Civil revision against order allowing impleadment of proposed defendant in suit for permanent injunction. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued respondent was neither necessary nor proper party; respondent claimed rights over suit property based on agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )

3. In an injunction suit, a person claiming rights based on an agreement is not a necessary party; impleadment would enlarge suit scope. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

4. A person whose rights are not directly adjudicated in a suit is not a necessary or proper party for impleadment. (Para 10 , 12 )

5. Civil revision petition allowed; order allowing impleadment set aside. (Para 13 )

6. Who is a necessary party in a suit?

A person who ought to have been joined and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. (Para 10 )

7. Who is a proper party in a suit?

A person whose presence enables the court to completely and effectively adjudicate all matters in dispute, though not a necessary party. (Para 10 )

8. Can a person be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff?

Generally, no, as the plaintiff is dominus litis. However, courts may order impleadment of proper or necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. (Para 9 , 10 )

9. Can title be decided in a suit for permanent injunction?

Title can be gone into incidentally but cannot be the main basis for deciding rights; scope is limited to prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. (Para 12 )

ORDER :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order, dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.583 of 2018 in O.S.No.947 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, wherein the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the petitioner therein as defendant No.7 was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.947 of 2012 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their followers and agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and ownership of the revision petitioner over suit schedule property and also restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 therein from alienating and executing the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 therein. During pendency of the said suit, an I.A.No.583 of 2018 which is the subject matter of the present revision is filed by respondent No.1 herein to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit and for consequential amendment of the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that initially the suit schedule property was purchased by the revision petitioner along with one Mr. Chenda Manohar and respondent No.1 herein from Bandaru Venkateshwarlu and others. Further there was an oral agreement and mutual understanding between them which is agreed to abide by them and inspite of purchasing the said property by all of them the sale deeds were registered in the name of Mr. Chenda Manohar and the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner and Mr. Chenda Manohar sold away the said lands and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 and Mr.Chenda Manohar have apportioned the sale proceedings without any disturbances. It is further stated that there were negotiations and the said negotiations were reduced in writing and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 signed on the said document and in furtherance of the said document, another document was also executed on 28.02.2017. It is further stated that in the panchayath, which was held on 28.02.2017, decided that out of Ac.16.05 guntas, the revision petitioner and Mr.Chenda Manohar has sold away the land to an extent of Acs.10.00gts., to Bhavathi Educational Society and the remaining land to an extent of Acs.6.05gts. is available at that time and as such, it is decided that the revision petitioner is entitled to two shares i.e., Acs.4.03 guntas and respondent No.1 is entitled to one share i.e., Ac.2.02 guntas. It is further stated that the revision petitioner, without giving any information and knowledge of respondent No.1, had sold away the land to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., in Sy.No.125/2 including property of the petitioner to Suchitra Township through registered sale deed bearing document No.3601 of 2017, dated 17.03.2017. It is further stated that the revision petitioner had sold away excess land Ac.2.02 gts., in Sy.No.124/2 which is belong to the petitioner, therefore, he prayed to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit.

3. The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the suit is filed for permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 6 over the suit schedule land in Sy.No.124/2 to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., of Thimmapur Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District from Mr. Bandaru Venkateshwarlu under agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide document No.3917 of 2008, dated 30.07.2008 but respondent No.1 herein created a false story and intending to come on record without any basis and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Having perused the entire material on record, the learned trial Court concluded that to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the proceedings and there is prima facie evidence that there is a lis pending between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 herein and no