THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2931 of 2022

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.281 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of

2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet.

2. O.S.No.59 of 2010 is filed by respondent No.2/plaintiff against petitioner/defendant for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1/proposed plaintiff No.2 filed I.A.No.281 of 2022 against respondent No.2 and petitioner herein to implead proposed plaintiff No.2 as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. The trial Court allowed the application on 30.11.2022. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the suit is of the year 2010 and the evidence of plaintiff was closed. Inspite of filing the chief-examination as plaintiff could not attend for cross- examination, the trial Court treated his further cross-examination as Nil. Plaintiff filed the suit through his GPA holders. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 stopped prosecuting the suit on the ground that the plaintiff No.1 revoked the GPA. Later with the permission of the Court, plaintiff No.1 put his signature on the plaint and filed neat copy of the plaint on 22.09.2022. In the cause of action para of the plaint, the GPA holders pleaded that on 02.04.2010, petitioner/defendant tried to dispossess them whereas the proposed plaintiff claiming his right over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed dated 18.09.2021 and thus on the date of cause of action, proposed plaintiff No.2 has no right over the suit schedule property. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction and the suit will be against a person but not with regard to property. As such, proposed plaintiff No.2 claiming right through the registered gift deed is not a necessary party. Plaintiff is dragging on the matter without any reason. Earlier, plaintiff, his sons and agents filed several suits against petitioner and his son with regard to their property. The trial Court ought to have seen that in Kasturi Vs Uyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “ it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question 3 who is a necessary party. Tests are (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.”

Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Dr.P.Ashwini Kumar, plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction and stated that the land out of Sy.No.767 belongs to plaintiff. As per Pattadar Pass Book and title deed No.229801, he sold 2558 Sq.yards to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and executed sale cum GPA deed in favour of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and upon receiving the entire sale consideration. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of Ext:2558 Sq.Yards as per GPA document No.2904/10 dated 22.03.2010 but their GPA was revoked on 29.12.2010 and 30.12.2010. From then onwards plaintiff No.1 is in possession. When the value of the land in and around the suit sites had increased, defendant had demanded all the plaintiffs to sell their sites and plaintiff No.1 refused the same. Later defendant tried to dispossess plaintiff No.1 on 02.04.2010, as such plaintiff No.1 filed suit for injunction.

6. I.A.No.281 of 2022 was filed by P.Vijay Kumar/respondent No.1/proposed plaintiff No.2 and he contended that he is the younger brother of Dr.P.Ashwini Kumar/plaintiff and plaintiff has no wife and children and as plaintiff has no one to look after him, respondent No.1 started to take care of plaintiff by providing medical and other basic needs. Respondent No.2/Plaintiff No.1 executed registered gift deed document No.13857/21, dated 18.09.2021 in favou