HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1820 AND 2113 of 2014
Dated: 27.08.2014
Between:
Bomma Jagadeeswara Rao Rep. by his registered GPA holder Bomma Venkateswarlu …..Petitioner And Valluri Venkateswarlu and two others …..Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1820 AND 2113 of 2014
COMMON ORDER :
These two civil revision petitions are directed against the common order, dated 05.02.2014 in I.A.Nos.154 and 155 of 2013 in O.S.No.35 of 2013 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Khammam.
2. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.35 of 2013 for specific performance of contract, dated 09.12.2011 against respondents 2 and 3 herein. Respondents 2 and 3 herein have filed written statements. At the stage of further proceedings, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.154 of 2013 under Order III Rule 2(a) of C.P.C. to permit the General Power of Attorney holder of the revision petitioner to represent the proposed defendant No.3. I.A.No.155 of 2013 was filed to implead the revision petitioner as Defendant No.3. The applications were resisted by 1st respondent by filing detailed counter-affidavits. The trial Court framed the following point for consideration:
Whether the petitioner can be permitted to add the proposed party as Defendant No.3 and he permitted to represent the General Power of Attorney or not?
3. After considering the scope of the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2013 and the submissions of the respective parties, the trial Court felt that the proposed party/defendant No.3 can be permitted to come on record as proper party and accordingly allowed the applications permitting the general power of attorney to represent proposed defendant No.3. Thus, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.3. Though the order dated 05.02.2014 is in favour of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the finding/directions of the trial Court in Paragraph No.13, which reads as follows:
“Therefore, the petition is allowed with a direction to the proposed parties to sought for relief as per law by seeking claim of the proposed party against others and come with correct pleadings, then the Respondent No.1 to 3 also get liberty to contending the same with these directions the petition is allowed. If the proposed party does not come with his claim by next adjournment with correct facts, the petition is deemed to be dismissed by 17.02.2014.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from contradictions and the trial Court having given a finding that the revision petitioner at best can be permitted to come on record as a proper party, ought not to have given further directions as set out in Paragraph No.13, which according to the learned counsel are unnecessary and secondly, the directions are not intelligible for compliance and revision petitioner for that reason no doubt could not take further steps in the matter. The revision petitioner prays this Court to set aside the finding/directions covered by Paragraph No.13 and after coming on record, the revision petitioner filed revision petition in accordance with law with afresh under Order VIII.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, draw the attention of this Court to the manner of consideration of issue by the trial Court in an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to come on record as defendant, more particularly the suit is one for specific performance of suit agreement. Further submissions of the learned counsel are that the suit is one for specific performance and primary as well as comprehensive issue for decision could be whether the suit agreement is enforceable under Sections 16 to 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or not, and no ancillary aspect relating to title or entitlement of the revision petitioner can either be considered or decided by the trial Court in the suit. If the revision petitioner has independent claim or sets up a comprehensive title either against all or of few respondents, the remedy is to by file a separate suit and by coming on record as defendant.
6. I have gone through the common order dated 05.02.2014. The learned trial Judge, no doubt, has considered the case set out in the affidavit and the objection raised by the 1st respondent. While considering the issue either about the necessity of permitting the revision petitioner to come on record or direction in para 13 of the impugned order, without expressing any view on merits, I am of the opinion that the order suffers from contradictions. To afford an opportunity to all the parties for the proper contest of the I.As., I set aside order, dated 05.02.2014 in I.A.Nos.154 and 155 of 2013 and remit the I.As. to trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Having regard to the serious contest on maintainability of applications, this Court has not considered both the aspects of the matter and it is for the trial Court to look at afresh and decide the issue.
8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in these civil revision petitions shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J 27th August 2014.
mar