The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3659 of 2014 Dated 07.11.2014 Between: T.Brahmaiah …Petitioner And Ch.Jagan Mohan Rao and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Gaddam Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: ----
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 28.08.2014, in IA.No.1073 of 2011 in OS.No.106 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri (for short ‘the lower Court’).
Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule property situated in Survey No.385 of Padmavathi Nagar, Kanajiguda, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement wherein it is inter alia stated that as the General Power of Attorney holder, he has sold an extent of 75 square yards in Survey No.405 situated at Mallareddy Nagar, Alwal Village and Municipality, Malkajgiri Mandal, to the petitioner. Based on the said written statement, respondent No.1 has filed IA.No.1073 of 2011 under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for impleadment of the petitioner as defendant No.3 in the suit. The said application was allowed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
Mr.Gaddam Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the property purchased by the petitioner is in Survey No.405 and the suit schedule property is in Survey No.385, his client is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit.
The lower Court, in its order, has observed that though respondent No.1 has not alleged any cause of action against the petitioner, in view of the specific plea raised by respondent No.1 that the petitioner is in physical possession of the suit schedule property and as there appears to be a boundary dispute between the two survey numbers, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit.
In my opinion, mere impleadment of the petitioner as one of the defendants in the suit would not cause prejudice to his interests. On the contrary, the dispute, if any, with regard to the petitioner’s property can be resolved once and for all, if he is impleaded as a defendant in the suit.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the lower Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4989 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 07th November, 2014
LUR