HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5683 of 2015

ORDER:

This Civil Revision petition is filed under Order

227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 04.12.2015 passed in IA (SR) No.11453/2015 in O.S.No.112/2005 on the file of I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein, the said interlocutory application filed by the 3^rd party under Order 1 Rule

10(2) CPC seeking to implead him was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is third party to the suit. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit O.S.No.11 of 2005 against respondent Nos.7 and 8 claiming to be the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title over the suit schedule property and also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Pending the said suit, the present application has been filed under Order I, Rule 10(2) by the present revision petitioner, who claims to be the lessee of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The revision petitioner contends that it is a necessary party to the suit and that the suit cannot be adjudicated without their inclusion.

3. The said application was taken on file at the S.R. stage and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 04.12.2015 it was rejected on the ground of admissibility. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed contending that the learned Judge erred in rejecting the petition at the inception stage, on the ground that the petitioner/tenant has no locus standi and that no cause of action has arisen for the tenant to be impleaded in the suit. It is further contended that the petitioner has substantial interest in the property as a lessee, and has invested a significant amount of money in developing a function hall on the suit schedule property. The petitioner asserts that he is a proper and necessary party having a vested interest in the property. It is also contended that the learned Judge has exceeded the scope of the application and, without considering the petitioner’s status as a necessary party, rejected the application. Furthermore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the issues relating to the tenant/lessee’s interest, including the payment of rents, are issues which affected in the adjudication process of the suit, and as such, the petition ought to have been allowed by the Court below without leading further evidence at the stage where the suit proceedings are going on.

4. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to add parties to the proceedings, and the mere fact that such addition is sought subsequent to the filing of the suit cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing to register the application under the said provision. The office objection raised ought to have been duly considered by the Court below, and the issues involved in the suit ought to have been adjudicated upon accordingly. Without addressing these material issues, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application at the threshold and has committed an error of law and acted without jurisdiction, which is apparent on the face of the record. Hence, prayed to allow the present revision petition, as the impugned order is perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside

5. Notices were issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 and

7 and 8.

6. Heard Sri M. Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Smt. K. Pallavi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, who also took notice on behalf of respondent No.6 and Sri K. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.7 & 8. Though notice sent to respondent No.1 was served, none appeared and respo