APHC010548532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2714/2025 Between: 1. KANUBUDDI SURIBABU, S/O LATE APPALANAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-89, THUMMAPALA VEEDHI, THUMMAPALA VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ALTHI SREENIVASARAO, S/O SANJEEVARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-13-13, ANJAYYA COLONY, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2. REBAKA MADHUBABU, S/O RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O H.NO.5-6-101, LAXMIDEVIPETA, ANAKAPALLE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order and Decree dated 13.05.2025 in I.A.No. 240 of 2024 in O.S.No. 72 of 2024 in the court of the Ill Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalie and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of suit in O.S.No. 72 of 2024 in the court of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The 1st respondent had filed O.S.No.72 of 2024 against the 2nd respondent, before the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle for grant of permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. 2. The petitioner herein, who is a third party to the suit sought to implead himself by filing an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was numbered as I.A.No.240 of 2024. 3. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, by order dated 13.05.2025. The learned trial Judge, took the view that the petitioner had not produced any material or documents to show that he was in possession of the land. The learned trial Judge also observed that the 1st respondent had produced Ex.P.1, which would show that the name of the petitioner was not recorded in any of the revenue records and as such, his contention of being in possession cannot be accepted. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the above, held that the petitioner was not entitled to implead as a party to the suit. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had already filed an agricultural tenancy case numbered as ATC 2 of 2024 4 before the Special Officer under A.P (AA) Tenancy Act-cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle and that the said application is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner is in possession of the property and that the rights given to a cultivating tenant would have to be protected. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the material in the ATC is sufficient to demonstrate that he is in possession and the learned trial Judge ought to have given an opportunity to implead himself as a party to the suit. 6. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that the application of the petitioner, to implead himself in the suit, was not maintainable and the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the application. He would submit that in the absence of any material, before the learned trial Judge, demonstrating possession of the petitioner or semblance of interest, no right is available to the petitioner to implead himself in the suit. 7. The petitioner did not produce any material before the trial Court to demonstrate a semblance of right over the property. In such circumstances, the order of the trial Court cannot be faulted. The contention that the petitioner would have adduced further evidence if he had been impleaded is liable to be rejected. The burden of demonstrating possession or any manner of right over the property is on the petitioner as he has chosen to approach the Court to implead himself as a party. In the absence of such material, the question of the trial Court allowing the implead petition and giving an opportunity thereafter to demonstrate such semblance of right does not arise. 5 8. However, the fact remains that the finding of the trial Court would effectively shut out the remedies of the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the order, dated 13.05.2025, in I.A.No.240 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle with the modification that the finding of the said order by the observation of this Court in this order would not be binding on the petitioner and it would be open to the petitioner to assert his rights before any other Court or Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 17.10.2025 KA 6 137 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2714/2025 Date: 17.10.2025 KA