Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 1572
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K MANMADHA RAO, J
Pennera Nagaraju – Appellant
Versus
G.Ramesh – Respondent
CRP 2031/2024
MURALI BABU DOMA, AYESHA AZMA S
A party seeking to be added in a suit must demonstrate necessary or proper interest; dismissal of such petitions is justified if the party can pursue separate legal action.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 - Impleadment of parties - The petitioner sought to be added as a party in a suit for specific performance, claiming ownership based on a partition deed executed after a cancellation deed. The trial Court dismissed the petition, stating the petitioner was not a necessary party. The petitioner contended that the trial Court's reasoning was contradictory and arbitrary. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Necessary and Proper Parties - The court reiterated that a necessary party is one whose absence would prevent effective adjudication, while a proper party is one whose presence would enable complete adjudication. The court emphasized that the addition of parties should not complicate the suit beyond its original scope. (Paras 5, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition against the trial Court's order dismissing his application to be added as a party in a suit for specific performance, arguing that he had a legal interest in the property based on a partition deed executed after a cancellation deed.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition, agreeing with the trial Court's view that the petitioner could file a separate suit if he had any interest in the property.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was a necessary or proper party to the suit and whether the trial Court erred in its dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial Court's dismissal was justified as the petitioner could pursue his claims in a separate suit, and the addition of parties should not complicate the original suit.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
The Court made the following Order:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.1458 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2023 on the file of Principal DistrictJudge, Kurnool (for short “trial Court”).
2. Heard Mr.D.Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Ayesha Azma.S, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the alleged contract of sale dated 17.11.2016 was executed by the 4th respondent, who is 1st defendant in the suit. The gift deed executed in favour of 4th respondent by the 5th respondent is cancelled under Registered Cancellation deed bearing No.37/2018, dated 01.01.2018. As such, they added the 5th respondent as 2nd defendant in the suit. He further submits that, subsequent to the cancellation deed, partition deed bearing No.40/2018, dated 04.01.2018 is executed among the family members and Item No.1 of the suit schedule property fell on the petitioner. Thus, the respondents conveniently made silent about the execution of the partition deed, which was immediately executed between the parties, after cancellation and by the date of filing the suit in the year 2023, neither the 4th respondent nor the 5th respondent are owners of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the petitioner is the owner, as such; the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. But the trial Court without considering the same, dismissed the petition though held that “if the proposed defendant is a subsequent purchaser under registered sale deed from the defendants, then he is having interest over the property and he can come on record and law will permit him to come on record. If at all, the proposed party is having any interest with the subject matter of suit property, he has to file a separate suit as he is not a proper and necessary party to come on record and that too for adjudication of all disputes in between the plaintiffs and defendants”. He further submits that both the observations are diagonally opposite.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court erred in saying that the petitioner has to file a separate suit instead of adding as a party in the suit for specific performance. He further submits that the trial Court erred in holding that only person obtained sale deed can be added as party, even in a partition deed also the person will get title and hence, the petitioner is a proper and necessary party and as such dismissing the same is arbitrary. He further submits that the trial Court failed to note the fact that the plaintiffs who are the respondents 1 to 3, mentioned the execution of cancellation deed bearing No.37/2018, however conveniently suppressed the execution of partition deed bearing No.40/2018 only to obtain decree for specific performance against the property of the petitioner behind his back. He further submits that the trial Court erred in holding that even in the absence of the proposed defendant, the suit can be disposed of and as such he is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. He further submits that the trial Court by dismissing the petition paved a way to multiplicity of proceedings instead of deciding the title and other aspects in the suit for specific performance which is a comprehensive one. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.1458/2023 in O.S.No.40/2023 and pass appropriate orders.
5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in H.Anjanappa and others vs. A.Prabhakar and others, [2025 INSC 121] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“55. In fact, the scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is similar. Therefore, the principles applicable to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, in order to bring a purcha
