The court held that a party must demonstrate the necessity of involvements in disputes for proper adjudication; mere apprehensions of future actions are insufficient.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 26.03.2024 passed in IA.No.1395 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed respondent No.6 as defendant No.6 in the suit was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri G.P.Yashvardhan learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are defendant Nos.1 to 5, respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff No.1 and during the pendency of the suit, she expired, as such, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded as her legal representatives in the suit.

5. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one Anreddy Janga Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.1980 and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same; and that she submitted an application to Secunderabad Cantonment Board seeking permission for construction of house in the subject property by complying with all the statutory requirements including payment of fee and that Secunderabad Cantonment Board, after verifying the documents, accorded sanction for construction of house on 19.04.1996, but due to paucity of funds she could not construct a house.

6. The plaintiffs further averred that when plaintiff No.1 was dispossessed from the suit schedule property under the guise of false, forged and fabricated documents, she filed the subject suit against respondent No.1 herein and others for the relief of recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. While so, on 14.12.2022, plaintiff No.2 noticed that some third parties have illegally and unauthorisedly erected blue tin sheets with black Tarpaulin around the suit schedule property and hence, he gave written complaint to Secunderabad Cantonment Board to take action for removal of the said structures, but no action was taken thereon.

6.1. It was further averred that defendant No.1, who has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, occupied the suit schedule property based on false, forged and fabricated documents and she is likely to approach Secunderabad Cantonment Board for grant of building permission; that the plaintiffs have served notice under Section 339 of the Cantonment Act on the Cantonment Board on 04.01.2023 and after expiry of statutory period from the date of said notice, application was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead Secunderabad Cantonment Board as defendant No.6 in the suit in order to seek the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the said Board from granting permission for any construction in the suit schedule property.

7. Before the trial Court, the respondents have not contested the aforesaid application. However, the trial Court, on perusal of the record, dismissed the application with observations that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and the plaintiffs have violated Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice by seeking number of reliefs in one petition, i.e., to implead the proposed respondent as party