ORDER

The revision petitioners herein are the respondents 2&3/

plaintiffs 2& 3 and the respondents 1 to 10 / proposed parties, respondents 11 to 15 are the defendants 1 to 5 and the 16th respondent herein is the first plaintiff before the Court below.

2. The respondents 1 to 10 have filed a Memo, dated

21.08.2023, stating that as on date, no original defendants are alive. However, the said factum was objected by the petitioner herein. At the same time, they admitted the death of respondents 11 to 14, viz., defendants 1 to 4. They would further submit that no notice is required to be taken as the plaintiff's right is right in personam and therefore, contended that there is no necessity for impleading their legal heir. The said statement is recorded. However, the petitioners disputed the death of the fifth defendant.

3. Therefore, in view of the memo and also upon the ground that the real contesting parties in the Civil Revision Petition are only the respondents 1 to 10, this Court proceeds to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the respondents 1 to 10 are neither necessary nor proper parties. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below, impleading them as the defendants 6 to 15 is erroneous. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020-3-13-SCC 773 (Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Kiran Kant Robinson) and AIR-1985-MP-199 (Sunil V.

Satyanarayan Dubey)

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 10 would contend that the plaintiff has not impleaded proper and necessary party and has impleaded the respondents 11 to 15 herein as the defendants in the suit and that all the original defendants have died. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that in respect of the suit property, the patta has been issued in the name of the respondents. Therefore, the order of the Court below is well merited. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon the judgment reported in AIR-2009-SCC -2033 (Anathula Sudhakar V. P.Buchi Reddy) and prayed to consider the same.

7. I have given my anxious consideration on either side submission.

8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that, originally, they have filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 5 for the relief of permanent injunction, based upon a specific cause of action, and would contend that the relief of permanent injunction is a right in personam and therefore, in such suit, these respondents 1 to 10 are not at all necessary and proper parties.

9. However, while perusing the contention put forth by the respondents 1 to 10, they would state that the plaintiff's father and one Ramanatha Pandijiear, by hatching criminal conspiracy and has created a lease deed and also obtained patta. The same will not bind this respondent and that they are also having patta in their name for the suit property.

10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners herein would invite the attention of this Court in respect of their counter statement filed before the trial Court. The same has referred to W.P. (MD)No.2248 of 2014 and W.A.(MD)No.1207 of 2015 and would contend that the alleged patta issued in the name of the respondents 1 to 10 has been subsequently cancelled, by virtue of the order passed in the above proceedings. As such, contended that there is no patta in favour of the respondents 1 to 10.

11. However, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 10 would invite the attention of the pleading in the plaint and would submit that even according to the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff referred that the suit property is in the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and some other landlords, and that those some other landlords are the respondents 1 to 10, therefore, he would submit that they are