THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3440 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 14.07.2023 in I.A.No. 201 of 2022 in O.S. No. 06 of 2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory application filed seeking to come on record as defendants Nos. 4 to 6 in the main Suit.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the above suit as plaintiffs for Injunction vide O.S. No. 06 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC.

4. The petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 204 of 2022 in O.S. No. 06 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 r/w section 151 of Civil procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) seeking permission to implead themselves as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in the above suit. The said application was filed on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit for effective adjudication of matter.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application holding that the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos. 4 to 6 herein, need not be impleaded in above suit as the petitioner/proposed defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were not involved in the cause of action that led to the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the third parties could not be impleaded as defendants in the suit, as their addition was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter.

6. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 14.07.2023 the petitioners herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

8. The petitioners contend 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 third-party petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 as defendants Nos. 4 to 6 in the above suit, despite they being necessary parties to the suit; that they are entitled and have exclusive right to defend and protect the subject property which was earmarked for park in Plot No.161; that they gave representations to the GHMC for construction of compound wall as the said place was intended for the use and benefit of the society’s residents, hence, the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 herein had acquired interest in the above suit; that their presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the suit; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding impleadment.

9. The petitioners further contend that if the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein are not impleaded as defendants Nos.4 to 6, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 would misrepresent and may obtain decree in their favour which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings; that as GHMC authorities already burdened with work load may not bestow time to the case; and that the denial of their impleadment would result in depriving them the opportunity to be heard to defend their rights in the subject suit.

10. Per contra, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 herein contend that the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of absence of merit, as the proposed parties, i.e., petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein allegedly made false allegations without filing any documents to prove that the subject property is earmarked for park in the layout; that their impleadment is not essential for effective adjudication as the third party petitioners Nos.1 to 3 herein do not dispute that the layout is of the year 1978, and thereby cannot claim subject plots forming part of the park.

11. The respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 herein further contend that the proposed defendants Nos.1 to 3 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit, as their interest is merely peripheral; that they had not even alleged any failure