A third party can be impleaded in a suit if their presence is necessary for efficacious adjudication and to prevent the multiplicity of litigation, particularly when the applicant's legal rights are at stake due to the subject matter of the dispute.

ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed in I.A.No.822 of 2022 in F.D.I.A.No.843 of 2017 in O.S.No.37 of 2003 by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dated 27.01.2023, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner who is the plaintiff got filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for partition of the plaint schedule properties. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are the defendants in the suit. Pursuant to passing of the preliminary decree, the petitioner/plaintiff filed final decree application vide F.D.I.A.No.843 of 2017 for appointment of an advocate commissioner for partition of the suit schedule property in terms of the preliminary decree. In the said final decree application, the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.822 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 duly praying the Court below for adding him being creditor of respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein in the said proceedings. The said application has been opposed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff denying the allegations and prayed to dismiss the I.A. After hearing the parties, the Court below allowed the said I.A and thereby permitted the 1st respondent herein to come on record as respondent No.5 in the main final decree proceedings. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Gundapu Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the Court below and the grounds of revision submitted that the proposed party/intervener is not proper and necessary party in a suit for partition that too in a final decree proceedings. The insolvency petition filed by the creditors against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein is allowed which was confirmed and thereby the Official Receiver has been appointed. If at all, the Official Receiver has to come on record, he can come as party respondent but not the proposed party/intervener. He further contended that inasmuch as 32 creditors are there in the said I.P. proceedings. If every individual creditor is impleaded, the nature of final decree proceedings will be changed and the final adjudication will not see the light of the day. He further submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have approached the receiver instead he has filed the present application praying the Court to permit him to come on record as respondent No.5 to the final decree proceedings. The Court below failed to take into consideration Order I Rule 10 in a right perspective. When the 1st respondent herein is not proper and necessary party, he cannot be brought on record. The Court below erroneously allowed the said application, as such, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the orders impugned.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited & Others, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417 and prayed to pass orders.

6. On the other hand, Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are declared as insolvents and it has attained finality and the subject property of the said I.P. proceedings i