APHC010230642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1107 OF 2024 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 28-02-2024, passed in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa. Between: Takkoli Maheswar Reddy, S/o Pedda Nagi Reddy, aged 63 years. Cultivation, R/o. C.Kothapalle Village, Valluru Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Nimmakayala Veera Reddy, S/o Nimmakayala Eswar Reddy, aged 38 years. Cultivation, R/o. Chilukurukothapalle Village & Post, Valluru Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondent/Third Party 2. Sivalingam Ramu, S/o. Dasaraiah, aged 48 years, Agriculture, R/o D.No.7/15, C.Kothapalle Village, Valluru Mandal, YSR District. ...Respondent/Defendant/Respondent No.2 7 *• ,■ / 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 p.S.No. 270 of 2020 on the file of Hon’ble III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. M.Siva Jyothi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: — The Court made the following Order: 1 ;^PHC010230642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1107/2024 getween: 1.TAKKOLI MAHESWAR REDDY, S/0 PEDDA NAGI REDDY AGED 63 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/0 C.KOTHAPALLE VILLAGE VALLURU MAN DAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.NIMMAKAYALA VEERA REDDY, S/0 NIMMAKAYALA ESWAR AGED 38 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/0 VALLURU REDDY, CHILUKURUKOTHAPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. AGED 48 YEARS, 2.SIVALINGAM RAMU, S/0 DASARAIAH AGRICULTURE, R/0 D.NO.7/15 C.KOTHAPALLE VILLAGE,VALLURU MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the 1 * circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 28-02-2024 passed in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa ^O: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 \ Pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 270 of 2020 on the file of Hon’ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M SIVA JYOTHI \ Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1 - A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 on the file of Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before the Court below seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Pending the said suit, the respondent No. 1/third party filed I.A.No.589 of 2021 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), stating that the suit schedule property belongs to his ancestors and the same derived upon him and that he is in its absolute possession and enjoyment since many decades, as such, requested the Court below to implead him as second defendant in the suit. In reply, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the third party and stated that the aforesaid application was filed by the third party with a malicious intent to defeat the legitimate claim and right of the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below, after going through the material available before it, has passed orders in I.A.No.589 of 2021 dated 28.02.2024 duly observing as under: 2. “10. It is settled law that, the matter must be decided on merits. On hearing of both parties and taking of relevant evidence. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and he has been in possession of suit schedule property, the petitioner should be given with an opportunity to produce the evidence for 4 deciding the issue involved in this suit. Therefore, this court opinions that if the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the suit by adding him as defendant No.2 the Court can adjudicate the matter effectually and completely and settled all the questions involved in the suit. If this petitioner is allowed the matter is not to cause any prejudice to the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is at liberty and he has every opportunity to cross examine the petitioner on all material aspects. Therefore if the petitioner is added as party the present suit, the matter can be decided on merits. The very endeavor of the Court should be to ensure that all relevant available materials should be come on record which can effectually and conclusively adjudicate the dispute between parties. In that circumstances this Court feels that it is necessary to add the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the present suit accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner. 11. In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is added as defendant No.2 in the main suit. Plaintiff is directed to make necessary amendment of plaint and to file neat copy of plaint.” 3. Aggrieved by the above referred order dated 28.02.2024 petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. the 4. When the petition came up for admission on 10.05.2024 this Court has passed an interim order staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.270 of 2020 on the file of Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, initially for a period of two weeks and the same was extended from time to time. 5. Heard Smt. M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit is filed for permanent injunction and that the petitioner being the author and ‘Dominus litis’ can proceed against a person against whom he has grievance and that the respondent herein is not necessary party to the suit and if he has any grievance, he has other remedies under 5 law. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set-aside the order dated 28.02.2024. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand contends that the order dated 28.02.2024 is faultless in all aspects and contended that the respondent No.1 is proper and necessary party for effective disposal of the suit. As such,, requested this Court to dismiss the revision petition. Admittedly, I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 was filed by 8. respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. As such, it would be appropriate to refer to the said provision, which deals with the power of the Court to strike out or add parties and the same is extracted hereunder: “10(2) 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 on 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.” The object of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of C.P.C., is to bring 9. before the Court all persons, who are parties to the dispute relating to subject matter so that dispute may be determined without delay, inconvenience and expenses of separate actions. The Court may be in a position to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit between the parties. If the Court is satisfied that the parties are to be impleaded as proper and necessary for adjudication of all the issues and such party has direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, invariably it is required to implead such a a party to the proceedings. Crucial test for impleading any party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, is whether presence of such party is necessary or proper without whom there- can be no effective or final adjudication of all the issues involved in the suit with regard to the subject matter. person as same 10. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the subject suit against the 2"^^ respondent/defendant herein for permanent injunction by restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It has to be observed that the said suit is for injunction simpliciter and not for declaration. In the subject suit petitioner/plaintiff is claiming his right over the property through DKT.No.23/1393 , dated 30.04.1984. On the other hand, respondent No. 1/third party contended that his family is in possession of the suit schedule land since many decades. If at all the 1*' respondent/third party is aggrieved by the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the subject land he may file a suit for declaration against the petitioner/plaintiff. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that nor a proper party, necessary for adjudication of all the issues, if such party has direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, invariably it is required to implead such a person the 1"' respondent/third party is neither a necessary party No doubt, the parties are to be impleaded as proper and as a 7 party to the proceedings, but, in the case on hand, when the suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the 2'^'^ respondent/defendant only to restrain the respondent No.2/defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property, there is no such necessity for impleading the respondent/third party. When the question to be decided in the suit is whether to grant permanent injunction against the respondent No.2/defendant, the proposed party i.e. respondent No. 1/third party need not come on record to adjudicate the said issue. Just because it would not cause any prejudice to the case of the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent No.2/defendant, the Court below ought not to have impleaded the 1®* respondent/third party by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 is set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2. One CC to M.Siva Jyothi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies GPC vna \ \ HIGH COURT DATED; 04/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1107 OF 2024 ^ I 0 OCT 2025 ' %) Co' O ^Js^^yrrentSectiopX^/ ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS