IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.451 OF 2010 DATED:25.06.2010 Between:
Smt. Dhanagari Venkatamma and others … Petitioners And Dhanagari Hanmanth Reddy (died) Represented by legal representatives and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.451 OF 2010 ORDER:
Heard Sri A. Ushi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6, who are legal representatives of deceased first respondent, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for second respondent.
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A. No.93 of 2009 in O.S. No.84 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dt.30.3.2009.
The petition was filed by the deceased first respondent herein seeking to be impleaded as sixth plaintiff in the suit contending that he is also a member of the joint family, the partition of the properties of which is now sought in the suit and as he is also entitled to a share through Bagareddy branch, he may be impleaded. The original plaintiffs 1 to 5 resisted the request contending that the first respondent herein, who is a third party, is neither a proper nor a necessary party and has no cause of action to be impleaded.
The learned District Judge in the impugned order referred to an order passed by the Commissioner of Labour, which was filed by the first respondent herein before the District Court, in which it is allegedly shown that first respondent herein is the son of Baga Reddy. The District Judge also noted that as per the pedigree claimed by first respondent herein, Baga Reddy may be having a share in the property and hence opining that first respondent herein has interest in the said property, the District Judge directed his impleadment.
The original plaintiffs 1 to 5 challenged the said order in the present revision contending that first respondent herein has absolutely no right in the property and no connection with the family and he was impleaded without following due procedure. They contended that D. Baga Reddy, father of first respondent herein, is not a member of the joint family and any order passed by the Commissioner of Labour could not have been utilized as probablizing the first respondent being a coparcener. The trial Court could not have considered the first respondent to be having interest in the suit properties without any documentary evidence.
It is seen from the material papers filed by the revision petitioners that subsequent to the deceased first respondent being impleaded in the suit, he filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead nine more defendants in the suit and the said petition in I.A. No.648 of 2009 was dismissed by the District Judge on 30.7.2009. It is further seen that the petition filed by the first respondent herein to adduce his evidence in I.A. No.649 of 2009 also stood dismissed as the conditions imposed by the District Judge were not complied with.
Thus, it is not in dispute that though the first respondent herein was impleaded as sixth plaintiff as per the impugned order, he neither produced any evidence on his behalf nor was successful in getting impleaded nine others said to be interested in the suit properties like himself. Apart from the first respondent being no more now, with the respondents 3 to 6 having been brought on record herein as his legal representatives, thus, subsequent to the impleadment of the first respondent herein, nothing adverse to the interests of plaintiffs 1 to 5 appears to have come on record to prejudice their interests. It is, however, true that based on the order of the Commissioner of Labour, the District Judge expressed an opinion in the impugned order that the pedigree showed Baga Reddy also having a share in the property and the first respondent herein has therefore an interest in the suit schedule property. These observations should be understood as confined to the consideration necessary for the determination of I.A. No.93 of 2009 and even otherwise, if it is clarified that the determination of the suit on merits shall be uninfluenced by any observations made in I.A. No.93 of 2009.
The interests of plaintiffs 1 to 5 are sufficiently safeguarded.
The jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead proper and necessary parties was invoked by the District Judge in exercise of his judicial discretion on the basis of material placed before him and in the restricted exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the same need not be interfered with under the circumstances.
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without costs. But, it is made clear that any of the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order in I.A. No.93 of 2009 in O.S. No.84 of 2006, dt.30.3.2009 shall not influence the determination of the suit on merits in accordance with law.
(G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 25.06.2010 bnr