HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3097 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to set aside the Order dated 01.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.96 of 2024 in O.S. No.14 of 2023 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad and pass such other order or orders.”

3. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the defendant in suit O.S.No. 14 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. The said suit O.S.No. 14 of 2023 had been filed by the plaintiff there under/ 1^st respondent herein seeking prayer as under:-

“The plaintiff therefore prays that the Honourable court may be pleased to;

a) to pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, heirs, henchmen and all other persons claiming through him from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

b) to award the Costs of the suit.

c) to grant any other relief or relief’s which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and property in the circumstances of the case.”

4. I n the said suit I .A.No. 96 of 2024 in O.S.No. 14 of 2023 had been filed by the petitioner/ defendant seeking prayer as under:-

“….in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that Honourable Court may be pleased to implead the proposed parties as Defendant No.2 to 5 i.e., 1) Erasani Ranga Reddy, S/o.Late. Ramreddy, Occ.Agriculture, R/o; Kesamudram Village of Kesamudram Mandal in Mahabubabad District 2) The Tahasildar-cum joint sub registrar, Kesamudram, 3) The revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad Division, 4) The District Collector, Mahabubabad District in the suit in the interest…”

5. Learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2024, dismissed the petition i.e., I.A.No.96 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the proposed parties i.e., 1) Erasani Ranga Reddy, 2) The Tahsildar, Kesamudram Mandal, 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad and 4) The District Collector, Mahabubabad District in the suit proceedings and the relevant paragraph Nos.11 to 13 of the said impugned order, dated

01.08.2024 is extracted hereunder:

“11. Admittedly, the suit is filed by respondent/plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction and to decide the suit, the Court has to see whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit or not. The burden is on plaintiff to show the same. The substantive rights are not decided in the suit for grant of permanent injunction. The petitioner can file various petitions or suits for his rights said to have acquired by him from an agreement of sale. it is settled law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and he can choose against whom he can get relief as prayed by him in the suit. The issues raised by the petitioner in his written statement are not decided in this suit even though the proposed parties are impleaded in this suit.

12. In view of the above discussion and in the light of principles of ratio laid down in the above decision and this Court holds that the petitioner has not shown sufficient grounds to allow this petition by impleading proposed parties as mentioned in this petition. The point is answered accordingly.

13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the petition the parties are directed to bear their own costs.”

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.10.1994 reported in 1995 (3) SCC 147 in “Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishar Alias Gadasa Guru” and in particular relied upon paragraph Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10 of the said Judgment.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the res