IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY^^^^J * H|3: s? Ik ■o CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3186 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Decree and Order of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore passing in IA.No.593 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2022 dated 17.09.2024 BetWeen: Challa Sridevi, W/o Sankar Reddy, Aged 42 Years, R/o 25/6/371, Ven|^atareddy Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellpre District. ...PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/PROPOSED DEFENDANT No.2 AND 1. Allampati Ramesh Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, Aged 57 Years R/o Balaji Nagar, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District Mudi Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o Kota Reddy Aged 52 Years, R/o Marripadu Village, Sangam Mandal SPSR Nellore District. 2. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS Cl^alla Sankar Reddy, S/o Late Subba Reddy, Aged 58 Years, R/o. D.No. 2^/6/371, Gandhi Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. 3. ...RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANT i. 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.64 of 2022 On the File of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition .r k. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G. JAGADEESWAR Counsel for the Respondent No’s 1 & 2 : SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010573682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3186/2024 Between; Challa Sridevi ...PETITIONER AND Allampati Ramesh Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G JAGADEESWAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following: SRK, J CRP No. 3186 of2024 ORDER Challenging the Order, dated 17.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.593 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2022 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’), the petitioner/propbsed party preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.3/ defendant; that she filed D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Magistrate’) against the respondent No.3/defendant and his parents and brother seeking the relief of restraining them from alienating the shared household property to third parties. The learned Magistrate vide Order, dated 09.12.2022 3. partly allowed the D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 in favour of petitioner herein against the respondent No.3 herein and other respondents therein, directing not to alienate the schedule mentioned joint family properties to third parties. 4. Case of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.64 of 2022 on the file of the learned ill Additional District Judge, Nellore against the respondent SRK, J CRPNo.3186of2024 No.3/defendant for the relief of Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale alleging that the respondent No.3/defendant executed an Agreement of Sale on 31.07.2019 in their favour, agreeing to sell two shop rooms in stilt floor, which are to an extent of 2400 square feet including the undivided extent of 80 square yards of joint passage, situated in Ward No.19 at Chinna Bazar, Nellore Town. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs, in collusion with respondent No.3/defendant to evade maintenance and to create trouble to the petitioner, filed O.S.No.64 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore. The Agreement of Sale, dated 31.07.2019 is not valid in the eye of law, as the learned Magistrate vide Order, dated 09.12.2022 restrained the respondent No.3/ defendant from alienating the schedule mentioned joint family properties in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 to third parties. Hence, the petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.593 of 2024, to implead her as 2"'^ defendant in O.S.No.64 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, as she being the proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings. Page 4 of 13 SRK, J CRPNo.3186 of2024 6. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore vide impugned Order, dated 17.09.2024 dismissed the I.A.No.593 of 2024, holding that the petitioner did not file the schedule of the property mentioned in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 to show that the schedule property in O.S.No.64 of 2022 is part and parcel of schedule property in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016. It was further held that since no charge was created on the schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.64 of 2022, the petitioner is not entitled to question the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the respondent No.3/defendant in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs. It was further held that when the petitioner is not a party to the subject agreement, she is not a proper or necessary party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.64 of 2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Order, dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 categorically shows that Ex.P22 pertains to the schedule property in O.S.No.64 of 2022 and the said Order protects the rights of the petitioner over the schedule property in O.S.No.64 of 2022 as the respondent No.3/defendant directed not to alienate the schedule mentioned joint family 7. was SRKy J CRPNo.3186of2024 properties, of which the property in O.S.No.64 of 2022 is part and parcel of the schedule property in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016. These aspects are suffice to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is proper and necessary party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.64 of 2022, but these points have not been adjudicated in right perspective. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/ 8. plaintiffs would contend that the petitioner is nothing to do with the property of the respondent No.3/defendant. Learned counsel would further contend that the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 is at a later point of time i.e. subsequent to execution of agreement between the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and respondent No.3/defendant. The respondent No.3/defendant and the petitioner, being husband and wife, colluded together and pressed the application into service, only to drag on the proceedings in O.S.No.64 of 2022. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. Heard. Perused the record. 9. The point that would arise for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order, dated 10. 17.09.2024 in I.A.No.593 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2022 passed by SRK, J CRPNo.3186of2024 tho leQrnod III AdditionBi District Judge, Nellore suffers perversity, illegality, irregularity or propriety of law requiring any interference of this Court? any 11. Order I prescribes Parties to Suits and Order i Rule 10 CPC deals with suit in name of wrong plaintiff. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintif,f the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just Court may strike out or add parties.— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and dh such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (2) (3) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.— Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the (4) liS- SRK, J CRPNo.3186 of2024 plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, If the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. (5) 12. A plain reading of the above proviso enunciates that the Court may direct implead of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute arise in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court, may at any stage of the suit, can join a party as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against the said proposed party. He placed reliance on the decision laid down by, one of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Navaratna Estates, Visakhapatnam v. Kari Anasuya and others^ wherein it was held as under: 13. “It is settled that the necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and 2025 (2) ALD 435 (AP). Page'8 of 13 SRK, J CRPNo.3186of2024 proper parties are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person. The person must be directly or legally interested in the subject-matter of the litigation whether it be a question relating to movable or immovable property. The Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachahd Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [(1992) 2 SCC 525], held that the plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not bound to sue every possible adverse clairhaht In the same suit. He may choose to implead only those' parsons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed though under Order 1 Rule 3 CPC, to avoid multiplicity of suit and heedless expenses all persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist may be joined as defendants. However, the Court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parties. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. Rule 10 CPC specifically provides that it is open to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The Hon’ble Apex court further held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 CPC gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. [2010 (5) ALD 24 (SC) = (2010) 7 SCC 417], the Apex Court reiterated that the general rule In regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against SRK, J CRPNo.3186of2024 whom he does not seek any relief. But this general rule is subject to the .provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. 14. A perusal of the above proposition of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner goes to show that the proposed party must be directly or legally interested in the subject- matter of the litigation. The only question that needs to be decided in the Revision Petition on hand is whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs, who are purchasers against the respondent No.3/defendant-vendor, a third-party or a stranger to the contract, claiming to have charge over the schedule property, is entitled to be added as party-defendant in O.S.No.64 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore. In this regard, the guiding principle is that as to whether the presence of petitioner is necessary to adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale? Thus, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the scope of the suit. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the contract 15. SRK, J CRP No. 3186 of2024 entered into between the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs- purchasers and respondent No.3/defendant-vendor and whether C- ■ contract was executed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and respondent No.3/defendant for sale of the contracted property and whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale against respondent No. 3/defendant. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek her impleadment in the suit on the strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale has been filed, indeed, she based her claim on the Order, dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate in DVC No.69 of 2016, wherein the respondent No.3/defendant along with other respondents therein were directed not to alienate the schedule mentioned joint family properties to third parties and it is her contention that the schedule property in the suit vide O.S.No.64 of 2022 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs against the respondent No.3/defendant is part and parcel of the schedule property mentioned in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016. It is, therefore SRK, J CRPNo.3186 of2024 obvious that in the event, the petitioner is impleaded in the suit proceedings, the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific performance to a suit of some other nature and scope, which is not permissible in law, which would lead to a complicated litigation resulting which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into. In Asian Hotels (North) Limited v. Alok Kumar Lodha and others^ the Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraph No.37, held as 17. under: “...The principle that the plaintiff’s is the dominus litis shall be applicable only In a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and/or proper parties. The plaintiff’s cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and/or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiff’s is the dominus litis.” Further, in Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and others^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 18. No.5.6, held as under; ^ (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 145. ^ (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 773. « • Page ,12 of 13 SRK, J CRPNo.3186 of2024 “The plaintiffs cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. If he does so, in that case, it will be at the risk of the plaintiffs. ” 19. There is another principle which has to be reminded. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs who filed O.S.No.64 of 2022 for specific performance of the'contract for sale is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom they do not want to fight unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. Indeed, the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in D.V.C.No.69 of 2016 is at later point of time i.e. subsequent to execution of agreement between the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and respondent No.3/defendant. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit proceedings and therefore, she is not entitled to be added as proposed party in the pending suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. The trial Court rightly dismissed the implead petition and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and force and it is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at 20. the stage of admission, confirming the Crder, dated 17.09.2024 ixJ SRK, J CRP No. 3186 of2024 passed in I.A.No.593 of 2024 in O.S.No.64 of 2022 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Nelore, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The III Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 2. One CC to Sri G.Jagadeeswar, Advocate [OPUC] i 3. One CC lo Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies MV TAG V : HIGH COURT DATED: 25/04/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3186 of 2024 ep^OfANOT;^ 5 2 2 SEP 2025 t ^ Current Section ^ ^SPATCHeS * ^ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION