THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1601 of 2014 Dated: 20.09.2014 Between:
Smt. Menika Singh .. Petitioner and Vamsi Krishna Reddy and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C. Kumar Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 28.02.2014 in I.A.No.580 of 2013 in O.S.No.106 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Notices sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2 are returned unserved with the endorsements “addressee absent” and “addressee left” respectively. Therefore, by order dated 21.08.2014, this Court has permitted the counsel for the petitioner to serve notices on the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the lower Court. The counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo bearing USR.No.1171/2014, wherein he has stated that the personal notice sent to the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in the lower court, namely; Mr. K. Panduranga Reddy, was served on him. The acknowledgment evidencing proof of service is filed along with the memo. Despite service of notice on their counsel, respondents 1 and 2 have not entered appearance.
I have heard Mr. C. Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and perused the record.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the above-mentioned suit against respondent No.3 for perpetual injunction in respect of plot bearing No.13-Part (southern part), admeasuring 105 square yards, in Sy.Nos.10/A, 10/AA, 10/E, 10/U and 10/UU situated at Katedhan Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said suit, they have filed multiple interlocutory applications including I.A.No.580 of 2013 for impleadment of the petitioner in the suit as well as several interlocutory applications filed therein. By a common order dated 28.02.2014, the lower Court has allowed all those applications.
Since this civil revision petition is confined only to I.A.No.580 of 2013, the consideration is confined to the impleadment of the petitioner in the suit only.
A perusal of the record shows that in his affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.580 of 2013, Sri Neela Manohar Reddy, claiming to represent respondent No.2 as his General Power of Attorney, inter alia averred that despite the order of status quo granted in the suit, the original defendant has executed three registered sale deeds dated 10.07.2013, 18.07.2013 and 02.08.2013 in favour of the petitioner herein, that the petitioner, in collusion with the original defendant, created the alleged sale deeds and that, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party. He has further stated that on 26.09.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the original defendant has dispossessed respondents 1 and 2 from the petition schedule property with the help of one Mukesh Singh, the husband of the petitioner.
In her counter-affidavit, the petitioner has stiffly resisted the application for her impleadment. She has categorically averred that she has purchased open plot admeasuring 16.6 yards in Sy.No.9 of Katedan Village through registered sale deed bearing document No.5790/2013 dated 18.07.2013, open plot admeasuring 66.00 square yards in Sy.No.9 of Katedan Village through registered sale deed bearing document No.5588/2013 dated 10.07.2013 and open plot admeasuring 70.00 square yards in Sy.No.9 of Katedan Village through registered sale deed bearing document No.6134/2013 dated 02.08.2013, and that while she is in possession of the said properties, she has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. She has, therefore, pleaded that she is not a necessary or proper party for being impleaded in the suit.
A perusal of the order under revision would show that though the lower Court has adverted to the averments of the petitioner in brief that the sale deeds executed in her favour are not concerned with the suit schedule property and that, therefore, she is not a necessary party, it has not dealt with this aspect at all. The only reason for ordering impleadment of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 have alleged that despite subsistence of status quo order, the original defendant has dispossessed them with the help of the husband of the petitioner and that as the said allegations were not denied by the original defendant, the lower Court felt that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit.
I fail to find any rationale behind the impleadment of the petitioner. Admittedly, the property purchased by the petitioner is in Sy.No.9, while the property in respect of which the suit is filed is situated in Sy.No.10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have not sought for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are invalid. It is also not their pleaded case that the petitioner has in any manner interfered with their possession. If the petitioner’s husband joined the original defendant to dispossess the plaintiffs, at best, he would have been a proper party if not a necessary party to the suit. Interestingly, the husband of the petitioner against whom allegations have been made has not been sought to be impleaded. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impleadment of the petitioner is wholly uncalled for, as she is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order dated 28.02.2014 to the extent of I.A.No.580 of 2013 is set aside and the said I.A. is dismissed.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the allowing of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2256 of 2014 stands disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th September, 2014 IBL