APHC010583222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 336/2025 Between: Kondagorri Kachamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Kondagorri Someswara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 31.07.2024 in I.A.No.25 of 2021 in O.S.No.7 of 2020 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raajam, Srikakulam District. 2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.7 of 2020 against four defendants for a perpetual injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, as set out, in the plaint, is that the plaintiffs succeeded to the plaint schedule properties after the death of Thavitayya, SRS,J C.R.P.No.336 of 2025 husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2; that plaintiff No.1 succeeded to ‘A’ schedule property and plaintiff No.2 succeeded to ‘B’ schedule property; that defendant No.3 is Sarpanch of the village; that defendant No.2, the husband of defendant No.3 is a political leader; that defendants 1 and 4 are also having political support; that while the plaintiffs intended to construct houses in item 6 of ‘A’ schedule property and laid foundations on 19.12.2020, the defendants along with their followers, entered into the schedule property with dangerous weapons and tried to occupy the land, however, the same was resisted; that the defendants made proclamations in the village that they will occupy the plaint schedule properties and hence suit for perpetual injunction was filed against defendants 1 to 4. 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.176 of 2020 for an injunction. The trial Court granted an interim injunction on 23.12.2020. 5. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed I.A.No.25 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to add the proposed parties as defendants 5 to 14 and for consequential amendments. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was pleaded about the filing of the suit and the granting of an interim injunction. In para No.5 of the affidavit, it was pleaded that since the proposed parties 1 to 3, in the second week of February, 2021, tried to occupy the plaint schedule properties, and thus the said application is filed. 7. Defendant No.4 and proposed parties 1 to 3 (proposed defendants 5 to 7) remained exparte. Defendants 1 to 3 and proposed defendants 8 to 14 reported no counter. 8. The trial Court, by order dated 31.07.2024, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. SRS,J C.R.P.No.336 of 2025 9. Heard Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would contend that the proposed parties are necessary for the adjudication of the suit. He would contend that the trial Court had not properly appreciated Order I Rule 10 of CPC. 11. The point for consideration is whether the order under revision suffers from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court? 12. Perused a copy of the plaint filed along with the revision. 13. A perusal of the averments in the plaint discloses that the cause of action to institute the suit arose on 19.12.2020, when the defendants, along with their followers, tried to obstruct the construction of the houses in item No.6 of ‘A’ schedule property and occupy the same. 14. In the affidavit, filed in support of I.A.No.25 of 2021, it was pleaded that the trial Court granted an interim injunction on 23.12.2020 in I.A.No.176 of 2020 against defendants 1 to 4. In para 4 of the affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that the proposed parties 1 to 3 (proposed defendants 5 to 7) instigated defendants 1 to 4 even before filing of the suit and despite the order of injunction, the proposed parties 5 to 8 i.e. official respondents, forcibly entered into the suit schedule property with JCB and destroyed the crops. Thereafter, the plaintiffs gave a complaint on 04.10.2021. 15. As stated supra, in para five of the affidavit, it was mentioned that the proposed parties 1 to 3, in the second week of February, 2021 tried to occupy the plaint schedule property and thus, the petition was filed to add proposed parties. Page 4 of 5 SRS,J C.R.P.No.336 of 2025 16. Thus, as seen from the averments in the affidavit, the plaintiffs intend to add the proposed parties, based on a cause of action that arose after the filing of the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs, instead of filing a separate suit, given the subsequent cause of action after filing of the suit, sought to implead proposed parties as defendants 5 to 14. 17. In fact, the proposed parties 1 to 3 remained ex parte and other proposed parties did not file a counter. No doubt the plaintiff is dominus litis. However, the suit was instituted seeking a perpetual injunction on a particular cause of action. The application filed by the plaintiffs to add the proposed parties, on a different cause of action, after institution of the suit, cannot be entertained. Thus, the application lacks merits, and in fact, the trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. 18. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court, and hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 22.04.2025 IKN SRS,J C.R.P.No.336 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 336/2025 Date : 22.04.2025 IKN