Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J
PALIKA NAGOORAMMA – Appellant
Versus
PILLI VENKATALAKSHMI – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 751/2025|CRP.No.751 of 2025|APHC010144572025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M Balanaga Srinivas
For the Respondents: Satyanarayana Nimmala, T V Jaggi Reddy
The court may implead a party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC if their presence is necessary or proper for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute, regardless of the plaintiff's wishes, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged an order passed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which allowed the impleadment of certain parties as defendants in a suit for permanent injunction. The dispute pertains to property bequeathed through Wills and a subsequent development agreement, where the petitioners sought to restrain other respondents from interfering with their possession. The court found that the impleaded parties were proper parties whose presence was necessary for a just conclusion. The court addressed whether the presence of the proposed parties was necessary for the effective and final adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It reasoned that while the plaintiff is generally dominus litis, the court possesses discretionary power to implead parties who have a direct interest in the subject matter to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a complete adjudication of the title and possession. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property dispute and impleadment application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal principles governing the addition of parties under cpc (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. necessity of respondents 1-4 for complete adjudication (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. dismissal of the revision petition (Para 10 , 11) |
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 tomay be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the order in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, dated 27-02-2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada, East Godavari District and consequently dismiss the petition in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016 and grant such
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 suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, dated 27.02.2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) kakinada and consequently dismiss the said I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, pending disposal of the C.R.P., failing which the petitioners would suffer serious loss and damage
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA
2. T V JAGGI REDDY
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short „CPC‟) for impleading them as defendants in the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Anasuri Vasantham, who executed a Will on 12.05.1985 bequeathing the property to her nephew by name Palika Surya Rao. After the demise of Anasuri Vasantham, the Will dated 12.05.1985 came into existence and Palika Surya Rao, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, enjoyed the said property during his life time and has registered a Will on 31.12.2015 bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the 1st petitioner with life interest rights and bequeathed vested reminder rights to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Upon demise of Palika Surya Rao on 12.01.2016, the registered Will dated 31.12.2015 came into existence and accordingly, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 took over the possession of the same. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 to 3, with an intention to develop the plaint schedule property into house sites, entered into a registered development agreement coupled with General Power of Attorney with the 4th petitioner on 29.02.2016. Thereafter, the 4th petitioner took over the possession of the plaint schedule property and constructed a compound wall.
(b) While so, in March, 2016, the respondent Nos.5 to 9, without any right over the plaint schedule property, started interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit before the trial Court in O.S.No.366 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.5 to 9 and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property.
(c) Pending the said suit, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to add them as defendant Nos.6 to 9. The Court below, vide order dated 27.02.2025, considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4, allowed the aforesaid application by permitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to be impleaded as defendant Nos.6 to 9 for arriving at
