ORDER:

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy, in I.A.No.1356 of 2022 in O.O.P.No.3 of 2021 dated 19.10.2022.

2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Sri D.Narender Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Having convinced by the submissions made that respondent No.3 was not properly described in the Original Petition and that the Stone Crusher Unit referred in the original petition is the revision petitioner herein and as it is also stated that respondent No.4 is not seriously disputing the presence of the revision petitioner/his absence as a party to the original petition, this Court feels that issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not required.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who filed O.O.P.No.3 of 2021, which stood pending on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, moved an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1356 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking the Court to add the revision petitioner herein as one of the respondents to the original petition.

5. The District Court, having considered the rival submissions made, gave a finding to the effect that the relief sought for is justifiable and thereby added the revision petitioner herein as a party to the original petition. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

6. Making his submission, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the original petition. Learned counsel submits that in case respondent Nos.1 and 2 have got any grievance against the acts of the revision petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 should file another original petition seeking appropriate relief against the revision petitioner, but they cannot seek for adding the revision petitioner as a party to the original petition, as no relief is claimed against the revision petitioner in the said original petition.

7. Learned counsel also submits that after the Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A.No.1356 of 2022 was allowed, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are petitioners in the said Interlocutory Application and also petitioners in the original petition, filed amended pleadings, incorporating certain other facts, which are impermissible under law. Learned counsel states that after permitting to add the revision petitioner as a party to the original petition, the pleadings can be amended only to the extent of adding the party, but cannot be permitted to add certain other facts and cause of action.

8. Per contra, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the pipe-line in question is passing through the land in Sy.No.660 and also through the land situated in other survey numbers, and respondent No.2 in the original petition, who is owner of the land in Sy.Nos.656, 658, 659 and 660 of Lakdaram Village of Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, has leased out the said land to the revision petitioner herein for carrying out stone crushing operations and after filing of the original petition, his clients came to know about those facts and, therefore, they moved an application for impleading the proposed party i.e. revision petitioner herein, as a party to the original petition. Learned counsel also submits that Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. permits the parties to the pleadings to add proper or necessary parties at any stage of the suit or the proceedings and, therefore, the revision petitioner cannot take a plea that respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought to have impleaded him as a party while filing the original petition itself and as they did not do so, they are under an obligation to initiate separate proceedings against the revision petitioner.

9. Framing a point, whether the proposed party is a proper and necessary party to the original petition, the learned District Judge,