THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 290 of 2024

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 30.11.2023 in E.A.No.54 of 2023 in E.P. No. 703 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in the underlying execution application seeking to come on record as necessary party in the main E.P.

3. The respondent No.1 herein filed the above execution petition as decree holder seeking issuance of warrant for delivery of the vacant possession of suit schedule property after evicting the respondent/judgement debtor and his family members vide E.P. No. 703 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 35 of Civil procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’).

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying execution application vide E.A. No. 54 of 2023 in E.P. No. 703 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 r/w section 151 CPC seeking permission to implead himself as necessary party in the above petition. The said application was filed on the ground that he is necessary and proper party to the main petition for effective adjudication of matter.

5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying execution application, holding that the petitioner need not be impleaded, as the main relief sought i.e. delivery of the EP schedule property to respondent No.1/decree holder had already been affected vide order dated 06.02.2023, leaving no further issue for determination requiring the petitioner’s participation as a third-party claimant.

6. The trial Court held that the petitioner, claiming as sub-lessee of respondent No.2/JDR has no subsisting right in the EP schedule property as by the decree the relationship between respondent No.1/DHR and respondent No.2/JDR has been determined; that no sub-lease agreement was disclosed in any prior proceedings i.e. the O.S.No.976 of 2014 or in CRP.No.1139 of 2022 or in SLP.No.34576 of 2022; and that the lease contains no clause in respect of permitting the sub-lease. Accordingly, the petitioner’s impleadment as a necessary party was found unwarranted, as its addition is not required for effective adjudication of the execution petition.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 03.11.2023 the petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

9. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 CPC by not impleading the petitioner as necessary party in the above petition, despite it being necessary party to the main petition; that it is entitled and has right to seek further time to vacate the subject property within one year; hence, the petitioner herein had acquired interest in the above suit; that its presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the main petition; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding impleadment.

10. Per contra, the respondent No.1/DHR herein contend that the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of merit, as the respondent No.2/JDR and proposed party, i.e., petitioner herein allegedly made false allegations and also filed false and frivolous applications vide E.A Nos. 01, 13 & 14 of 2022 in order to avoid complying with the directions of the Court below and to dodge the proceedings in the main E.P.

11. The respondent No.1/DHR herein further contend that the proposed third-party petitioner is neither necessary nor proper parties to the main petition, as its interest is merely peripheral and thus, the application filed lacks bona fides and is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. It is pertinent to note that in the above petition vide E.P No. 703 of 2022 by virtue of order dated 06.03.2023, the EP schedule property was deliver