IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV. FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUAR'S TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE W PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2186 OF 2024 Pstition und6r ArticI© 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Order in IA.486/2022 in OS.No.126/2018 dt.29-04-2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. Between: 1. Gude Ramu, S/o. late China Appanna, Aged about Cultivation, Denderu village Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Imandi Suryakantham, W/o. Govinda Rao, D/o. late Gude Apparao, aged about 41 years, Ramaswamypeta village, Veeranarayana Post, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. Kosuru Lakshmi, W/o. Satyanarayana, D/o. late Gude Apparao, aged about 40 years. House wife, Denderu village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Gude Eswara Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Denderu village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. Madabattina Chandrakala, W/o. late Appala Swamy, D/o. late Gude Appa Rao, aged about 33 years, House wife, Ramavaram Gandugundam Post, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6. Smt.Gude Somulamma, W/o. late Gangulu @ Thata Rao Aged about 47. years. House wife, R/o. Denderu village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 62 years. village. 7. Gude Sankara Rao, S/o. late Gangulu @ Thata Rao, Aged abodt 31 Mandal, Vizianagaram ^years, R/o. Denderu village, Kothavalasa District. ‘ '< 8. Smt. Madam Sivalakshmi, W/o. M. Srinivasa Thata Rao, aged about 25 Rao, D/o. late Gangulu @ years. House wife, 3-187, Pedda veedhi, Bheemali village and post, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...Petitioners/Petitioner/ Proposed Defendants AND 1. Bandam Demudu, S/o. Late Gangulu, Aged village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District 2. Gandreddi Prasada Rao, S/o. Denduru village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram about 60 years, Denduru Late Rajulu, Aged abiout 38 District. 3. Gandreddi Rajesh, S/o. Late Rajulu, Aged about 30 years, Denduru village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Gandreddi Satyavathi, W/o. Late Rajulu, Aged about village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. years. 57 years, Denduru ... Respondents/Respondents/PIa Intiffs 5. Gonthina Krishnaveni, W/o. Late Appalanaidu > Aged about 57 years Denduru village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6. Gonthina Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Appalanaidu, Aged about 57 Denduru village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 7. Gonthina Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Appalanaidu, Aged about 57 years Denduru village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. years. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. 126/2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Sri G Rama Gopal Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: Sri A S Bhimasankara The Court made the following: may be Rao THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2186 of 2024 ORDER: Petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 486 of 2022 in O.S. No. 126 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, to add them as party defendants in the suit and the said application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge vide order dated 29.04.2024 observing that it is only a bare contention of the petitioners that they are the necessary parties, however they have not filed any document and the proposed parties are neither shareholders nor have any rights, merely as a tenant they are not necessary parties and the application is filed to circumvent the law and in their absence, the Court can effectively adequately deliver the judgment. 2. It is very well settled principle that a "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be 2 - a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. 3. Now, under the aforesaid principle whether the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition are necessary parties to the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 4 who are plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No. 126 of 2008 on the file Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, filed for partition against respondents5 to 7. The petitioners are seeking to join them as party defendants in 4. the suit on the ground that they have filed suit O.S. No. 129 of 2001 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against the MVS Visweswara Rao who is the vendor' of the property vide document No. 1719 / 2000 dated 20.10.2000, registered in the office of S.R.O. Kothavalasa to 1®' plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the present suit O.S. No. 126 of 2018, on the file Junior Civil Judge Kothavalasa. However, as per the affidavit submitted in support of the implead application, the petitioners proposed defendants have not provided an explanation as to how they intend to claim the property in the suit filed by them. And the said suit was dismissed for default and an application for restoration filed under Order 9 rule 9 has not been numbered yet, so they say that they are the proper and necessary parties to the present suit O.S. No.126 of 2018, pending on the file of 3 % , Kothavalasa, filed by respondents 2 to 4 in Civil Junior Civil Judge Revision Petition. 5. To add a party to the suit, the party must have some nexus either to the person or to the property. Though the petitioners have not with the Civil Revision Petition, the Court filed the plaint copy along that the petitioners have a right over the property, as presumes deed executed by MVS Visweswara Rao, the No. 1719/2000 dated indicated in the sale vendor of the property, vide document 20.10.2000, registered in the office of the S.R.O. Kothavalasa, in favor plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. Since the suit was it shall be presumed that the petitioners have no interest in likely to secure a right or interest of the 1 dismissed. the property. The fact that a person is the suit property after the suit is decided against the plaintiff does in necessary or proper party to the not make that person or persons as a where the suit filed by suit for partition, especially in the present case dismissed for default, and the mere pendency of a the petitioners was restoration petition will not make them a necessary party. the order of the learned trial application filed by the implead This Court does not see any flaw in Court Judge in dismissing the petitioners as party defendants to the suit. 7. Accordingly, fhe Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However 6. ii' no costs. 4 sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, i this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. As a Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. One CC to Sri. M Balasubrahmanyam, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. G Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. A S Bhimasankara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2186 of 2024 ANDf^ g 12 JUN 2025 ^a£?SPATCH®^^ DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS