HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5767 OF 2012 ORDER:
The petitioners in I.A. No.834 of 2008 in O.S. No.1004 of 2008 in the Court Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, are the revision petitioners. The said application was filed under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to implead them as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The trial Court through the impugned order dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.
The trial Court referred to the circumstances under which the revision petitioners have filed the present application to come on record as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. The narration is sufficient enough to understand the controversy between parties and I am not proposing to reiterate the very same averments in this order.
The trial Court has considered whether the present application is maintainable or not. In my opinion the point which the trial Court has framed for consideration is not correct and legal in view of the nature of limited prayer the revision petitioners have made through I.A. No.834 of 2008. The trial Court ought to have framed a point whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the lis in O.S. No.104 of 2008.
The 1st respondent in the C.R.P. has filed the suit for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction against 2nd respondent. The relief is directed against the 2nd respondent in the revision petition. The averments in the plaint and the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 834 of 2008 disclose that the revision petitioners are setting up independent title and possession.
The petitioners are attempting to come on record and participate in the suit filed by respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioners as seen can be independently worked out. However, in the order impugned, a few observations against the interest of the petitioners have been made. The petitioners are claiming land in Survey Nos.349 of Kallakal village. It is to be noted that while considering the request of the petitioners to come on record as defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the trial Court is within its jurisdiction to consider whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of dispute in the suit. If for any reason, the presence of the defendants is proper and necessary, the trial Court is well within its jurisdiction to permit such parties to come on record. Alternatively for any of other reasons that the presence of such defendants firstly is not necessary, secondly that the cause now sought to be canvassed by the proposed defendants is distinct and independent, the trial Court can leave the issue or the grievance of such parties to be worked out in an independent suit. In latter circumstance, the trial Court is not justified in expressing any opinion on the merits or the claim of such parties who desired to come on record as defendants. In the case on hand, the trial Court has referred to and also recorded a few findings which are likely to be interpreted as expressing view by a Court of law on the claim of the petitioners. To the extent that, the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of instant suit, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. But, it should be made clear that findings recorded by the trial Court through the order impugned on the merits of the claim of petitioners are explicitly expunged by this Court. At the same time the petitioners are given liberty to work out their grievance vis-à-vis respondent No.1 or any party within the four corners of law in appropriate proceedings, if they are so advised.
With the above observation, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
S.V. BHATT, J Date: 20.01.2014 Stp