Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J
Sri. Mahayajula Gireesam Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Matta Subba Rao – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 260/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K Pallavi
For the Respondents: Madhava Rao Nalluri
A party claiming a direct interest in the subject matter of a suit, such as ownership via a Will, is a proper party whose impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication.
Headnote:Analysis of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case involves a petition for impleadment in a suit for cancellation of a decree where the proposed party claims ownership of the suit property based on a Will executed by the mother of the second defendant. The trial court had dismissed the impleadment application, stating the party was not necessary for deciding the issue. The main issue is whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the suit. The court reasoned that since the proposed party claims a direct interest in the subject matter via a Will, their impleadment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a final decision, noting that a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete decision. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in O.S.No.280 of 2016 is hereby set-aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the suit and the application for impleadment by a party claiming ownership via a will. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal criteria for adding necessary and proper parties under order i rule 10 cpc to avoid multiplicity of actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's direct interest in the property justifies impleadment for a complete and final decision. (Para 8) |
| 4. high court's supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 to correct errors in the exercise of discretion by subordinate courts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. setting aside the trial court's order and allowing the revision petition. (Para 13) |
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above Revision is filed aggrieved by the orders Dated- 17-09-2024 in l.A. 101 of 2023 IN O.S. 280 of 2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ongole
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. 280 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, pending disposal of the CRP and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K PALLAVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/proposed party aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in O.S.No.280 of 2016 whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as „CPC‟), for impleading him as one of the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) Originally, the subject land to an extent of Acs.53.12 cents belongs to one late Chakravarthula Lakshmana Rao and during his life time, his wife and daughter – 2nd defendant, executed an agreement of sale dated 07.04.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed pursuant to the aforesaid agreement of sale, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2002 before the Court below; the said matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat vide award dated 19.07.2002. In spite of the same, the defendants did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed.
(b) Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants filed O.S.No.820 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and obtained a decree on 02.03.2015. Seeking cancellation of the decree dated 02.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.820 of 2014, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.280 of 2016.
(c) It is the case of the proposed party that the mother of the 2nd defendant is his sister and succeeded all the properties after the demise of her husband i.e. Chakravarthula Lakshamanarao. Further, it is contended that the 2nd defendant obtained signatures on few papers and got fabricated certain documents pertaining to the land situated in Sy.No.30 to an extent of Acs.53.12 cents situated at Ammanabrolu village, Nagullupalapadu mandal, Prakasam district with a view to grab the same. It is the case of the proposed party that his sister i.e., mother of the 2nd defendant, before her death on 15.09.2020, executed a Will on 01.06.2020 bequeathing all the properties in his favour. The proposed party claim to be the owner of the suit schedule property, on the strength of the Will executed by the mother of the 2nd defendant on 01.06.2020. As such, the proposed party filed an application before the Court below under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, requesting the Court below to implead him as one of the defendants.
(d) The Court below, vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, dismissed the application file
