HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2947 OF 2024 ORDER: By this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the revision petitioners-proposed party defendants have prayed for setting aside the order dated 30-08-2024 in I.A.No. 370 of 2023 in O.S.No. 53 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No. 53 of 2017 on the file of the trial Court against respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are defendants, seeking to declare that they are the absolute owners of plaint schedule properties, for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule properties in any manner and for other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the suit by filing a written statement. In the aforesaid proceeding, based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and the suit is coming up for evidence of the plaintiffs. While the suit stands thus, the revision petitioners herein filed I.A.No. 370 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') seeking to implead them 2 as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit on the ground that pending the suit, defendant No. 1, through her General Power of Attorney Holder, sold item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties through registered sale deeds to them and that therefore they are proper and necessary parties for just adjudication of the suit. The respondents-plaintiffs filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the proposed parties are purchasers pendente lite and they are not necessary parties and that the alleged sale deeds in favour of the proposed parties have no validity in the eye of law. The trial Court dismissed the above said interlocutory application by the order under revision. 3. Heard Sri N.Sai Akash, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-proposed party defendants, Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, and Sri P.Venkata Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants. 4. The law is well settled that the plaintiff, being dominus litis, has a right to choose the parties to the suit. Though plaintiff is dominus litis, Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties if Court feels that their presence is necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit, which can order for implead them as a party suo motu or petition filed by either side. Due to that, plaintiff, on the doctrine of dominus litis, cannot oppose adding of proper or necessary 3 party to the suit in view of specific provision under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. The Court has a judicial discretion for addition of necessary party, which it has to exercise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In exercise of this discretion, the Court can direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party defendant. 5. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition for impeading would show that the revision petitioners- proposed party defendants are also claiming title and possession over item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties alleging that the respondents-defendants acquired item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties by registered Will executed by their father; that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 relinquished their 2/3rd share in favour of defendant No. 1 by way of registered relinquishment deed vide document No. 3574 of 2016; that they purchased the said items from one P.Munnikrishna, General Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No. 1, on 03-08-29019 under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 3291 and 3290 of 2019 respectively; that since the date of purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property; that their names are also mutated in revenue records and that defendant No. 1 sold away item Nos. 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties to them suppressing the fact of pendency 4 of the present suit. Having regard to the nature of the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the counter-claim of the revision petitioners- proposed party defendants, the presence of the revision petitioners is necessary for effectual adjudication of the dispute. If the revision petitioners are not impleaded as party defendants, it might have led to multiplicity of proceedings. In these circumstances, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 30-08-2024 in I.A.No. 370 of 2023 in O.S.No. 53 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, and the revision petitioners are directed to be impleaded as party defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to the suit. The trial Court thereafter shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as the suit is of the year 2017. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY Date: 03-04-2025, JSK 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2947 OF 2024 DATE: 03RD APRIL, 2025 JSK