ORDER:

In a suit for permanent injunction, is it an absolute bar for a third party to be impleaded as a defendant against the wish of the plaintiff?

2. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.08.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.115 of 2021 in O.S.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam filed by the 3rd parties under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC.

3. The facts leading to filing of the petition and the case of the petitioners are briefly as follows:

To the east of house of the 1st petitioner, there is a municipal road which was illegally occupied by the mother of the 1st respondent. Therefore, he approached the 2nd respondent to take necessary action by demolishing the said house which is raised on the municipal road. The 2nd respondent gave an endorsement by confirming that the mother of 1st respondent raised a house over the road. He approached the government for demolishing and removal of structures. Then, the 2nd respondent got issued a notice to the mother of the 1st respondent directing her to remove the structures, but the 2nd respondent did not take any action. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. The High Court directed the Machilipatnam Municipality to take further course of action in pursuance of notice dated 23.10.2019 and to pass necessary orders. In spite of issuing legal notices, the 2nd respondent did not respond properly. As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent got executed a collusive partition deed dated 03.04.2019 with the original encroacher and filed above suit against the 2nd respondent suppressing the facts. The property covered under the partition deed is nothing but the municipal road. The petitioners 1 and 2 are neighbours of that locality and the illegal encroachment causes substantial inconvenience to them. So, the petitioners have substantial interest over the property being worst victims in the hands of the 1st respondent and pray to implead them as defendants 2 and 3 in the main suit.

Consequential amendment:

Add the petitioners/proposed parties herein as defendants 2 and 3 in the short and long cause title of the main suit.

1) Vadlamudi Maruthi Rao, S/o Seshagiri Rao, Hindu, a/a 41 years, daily labour, resident of D.No.3/80-3, Borravari Street, Inagudurupet, Machilipatnam.

2) Narini Purnachandra Rao, S/o Chinananaiah, Hindu, a/a 61 years resident of D.No.3/19, Borravari Street, Inagudurupet, Machilipatnam.

4. The 1st respondent filed counter denying all the averments mentioned in the petition and contended briefly as follows:

The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her mother are living in the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent is his sister and residing with her mother who is an aged widow and staying alone. Taking advantage of this fact, these petitioners are harassing the respondent’s family. The suit is filed for the relief of perpetual injunction and the necessary party is only the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are only third parties in the suit proceedings and have no right, title, interest to add them as parties in the suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that as per the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ainala Kumar and others Vs Pulakanti Narsi Reddy and others1, the parties cannot be asked to prosecute a case against persons whom the plaintiff is not willing to prosecute case and it is for the plaintiff to choose the defendant in the suit and no third party can compel the plaintiff to fight litigations against third parties when he does not want to do so in a suit for injunction. So, the trial Court held that when the plaintiff who is the 1st respondent herein is not choosing the

1 2008(3) ALD 686

petitioners 1 and 2 as parties, the petitioners 1 and 2 cannot be impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 in the ma