APHC010413792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2186/2024 BETWEEN:

Gude Ramu and Others ...Petitioner(s)

AND Bandam Demudu and Others ...Respondent(s)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M BALASUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADAPA S BHIMASANKARA RAO

2. G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 486 of 2022 in O.S. No. 126 of

2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, to add them as party defendants in the suit and the said application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge vide order dated 29.04.2024 observing that it is only a bare contention of the petitioners that they are the necessary parties, however they have not filed any document and the proposed parties are neither shareholders nor have any rights, merely as a tenant they are not necessary parties and the application is filed to circumvent the law and in their absence, the Court can effectively adequately deliver the judgment.

2. It is very well settled principle that a "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff.

3. Now, under the aforesaid principle whether the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition are necessary parties to the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 who are plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No. 126 of 2008, on the file Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, filed for partition against respondents 5 to 7.

4. The petitioners are seeking to join them as party defendants in the suit on the ground that they have filed suit O.S. No. 129 of 2001 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against the MVS Visweswara Rao who is the vendor of the property vide document No. 1719 / 2000 dated 20.10.2000, registered in the office of S.R.O. Kothavalasa to 1^st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the present suit O.S. No. 126 of 2018, on the file Junior Civil Judge Kothavalasa. However, as per the affidavit submitted in support of the implead application, the petitioners proposed defendants have not provided an explanation as to how they intend to claim the property in the suit filed by them. And the said suit was dismissed for default and an application for restoration filed under Order 9 rule 9 has not been numbered yet, so they say that they are the proper and necessary parties to the present suit O.S. No.126 of 2018, pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, filed by respondents 2 to 4 in Civil Revision Petition.

5. To add a party to the suit, the party must have some nexus either to the person or to the property. Though the petitioners have not filed the plaint copy along with the Civil Revision Petition, the Court presumes that the petitioners have a right over the property, as indicated in the sale deed executed by MVS Visweswara Rao, the vendor of the property, vide document No. 1719/2000 dated 20.10.2000, registered in the office of the S.R.O. Kothavalasa, in favor of the 1^st plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. Since the suit was dismissed, it shall be presumed that the petitioners have no interest in the property. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right or interest in the suit property after the suit is decided against t