1 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 APHC010144572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 751/2025 Between: 1. PALIKA NAGOORAMMA, W/O.LATE SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.69-6-35, GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA. 2. DEYYALA SRINIVASU,, S/O.PEDDULU, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 1-216, G.MAMIDADA, KAKINADA. 3. PALIKA PRASAD,, S/O.MUSALAYYA, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.68-12-37, GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINAD THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANGISETTY RAMA MOHAN RAO, S/O.LATE RAMASWAMY, AGE 56 R/O.D.NO.67-1-38/1, FLAT NO.S3, VGP HEIGHTS, ASHOKNAGAR, KAKINADA) 4. SANGISETTY RAMA MOHAN RAO,, S/O.LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.67-1-38/1, FLAT NO.S3, VGP HEIGHTS, ASHOKNAGAR, KAKINADA ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PILLI VENKATALAKSHMI, W/O.KAMESWARA RAO (LATE), AGED 63 YEARS, D.NO.4-401/14, NEAR DUGAMMA GUDI VEEDHI, PATHA GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL. 2 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 2. CHOLLANGI BULAKSHMI, , W/O.KRISHNA (LATE), AGED 61 YEARS, D.NO.69-1-8/1, NEAR SYAMALAMBA STREET OF NEW GAIGOLUPADU, APSP CAMP, KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL. 3. ANUSURI ANASUYA, C/O.ANUSURI SATYANARAYANA (LATE), AGED 50 YEARS, D.NO.69-1-8/1, NEAR SYAMALAMBA STREET OF NEW GAIGOLUPADU, APSP CAMP, KAKINADA URBAN MANDAL. 4. ANUSURI SRINU, , S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.69- 1-8/1, NEAR SOVALAMMA GUDI VEEDHI OF NEW GAIGOLUPADU, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA URBAN MANDA 5. NARALA MANGADEVI, W/O.RAMBABU, AGED 47 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.69-6A-19/9, RAMANAGAR ROAD NO.5, GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA. 6. SAAGIRAJU KUSUMAKUMARI, , W/O.VENKATARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. D.N0.69-6A-19/9, RAMANAGAR ROAD NO.5, GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA. 7. NARAPUREDDY VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.SANYASI RAO, AGED 47 YEARS. FLAT NO.B4, S.K.SRAVANA MEGHA APARTMENTS, SECRETERIAT COLONY, RAJENDRANAGAR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT. 8. NADIMPALII BAPIRAJU, S/O.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, D.NO. 69-6A-19/28, ROAD NO.3, RAMNAGAR COLONY, KOTHA GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA 9. GONTUMUKKALA VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY RAJU, S/O.3AGANNADHARAJU, AGED 65 YEARS, D.N0.69-6A-19/2B, RAMNAGAR, KOTHA GAIGOLUPADU, KAKINADA ...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 tomay be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the order in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, dated 27-02-2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kakinada, East Godavari District 3 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 and consequently dismiss the petition in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016 and grant such 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the order passed in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, dated 27.02.2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) kakinada and consequently dismiss the said I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, pending disposal of the C.R.P., failing which the petitioners would suffer serious loss and damage Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M BALANAGA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA 2. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 4 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016, whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short „CPC‟) for impleading them as defendants in the suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The plaint schedule property originally belongs to one Anasuri Vasantham, who executed a Will on 12.05.1985 bequeathing the property to her nephew by name Palika Surya Rao. After the demise of Anasuri Vasantham, the Will dated 12.05.1985 came into existence and Palika Surya Rao, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, enjoyed the said property during his life time and has registered a Will on 31.12.2015 bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the 1st petitioner with life interest rights and bequeathed vested reminder rights to petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Upon demise of Palika Surya Rao on 12.01.2016, the registered Will dated 31.12.2015 came into existence and accordingly, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 took over the possession of the same. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 to 3, with an intention to develop the plaint 5 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 schedule property into house sites, entered into a registered development agreement coupled with General Power of Attorney with the 4th petitioner on 29.02.2016. Thereafter, the 4th petitioner took over the possession of the plaint schedule property and constructed a compound wall. (b) While so, in March, 2016, the respondent Nos.5 to 9, without any right over the plaint schedule property, started interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit before the trial Court in O.S.No.366 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.5 to 9 and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property. (c) Pending the said suit, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to add them as defendant Nos.6 to 9. The Court below, vide order dated 27.02.2025, considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 4, allowed the aforesaid application by permitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to be impleaded as defendant Nos.6 to 9 for arriving at a just conclusion and for complete adjudication of the suit. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2025, this civil revision petition is filed. 6 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 3. Heard Sri. M. Balanaga Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Satyanarayana Nimmala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the entire material available on record. 4. A perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the plaint schedule property, as per the petitioners, belongs to one Anasuri Vasantham and thereafter, the said property was bequeathed to the husband of the 1st petitioner by name „Palika Surya Rao‟ by way of a Will dated 12.05.1985. Subsequently, the subject property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein by way of another Will dated 31.12.2015. Subsequently, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 entered into a registered development agreement coupled with General Power of Attorney with petitioner No.4 on 29.02.2016. Accordingly, the 4th petitioner took over the possession of the plaint schedule property and constructed a compound wall. While the things stood thus, as respondent Nos.5 to 9 interfered with the possession of the petitioners, the petitioners filed O.S.No.366 of 2016 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.5 to 9 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, approached the Court below for impleading them as defendant Nos.6 to 9 by filing an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, which was allowed by the Court below by way of the impugned order dated 27.02.2025. 7 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 5. As the respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 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.” 6. The object of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of C.P.C., is to bring 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 parties 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 person as a party to the proceedings. 7. Crucial test for impleading any party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, is whether presence of such party is necessary or proper without whom there 8 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 can be no effective or final adjudication of all the issues involved in the suit with regard to the same subject matter. 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 whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. However, at any stage of the proceedings, the Court may order impleadment of the parties even though plaintiff is not interested to implead such person as party to the proceeding. The question of impleadment of a party to the proceeding has to be determined basing on the test as to whether the party is necessary for effective adjudication of the case. The language in the rule indicates that the plaintiff is prevented from contending that person cannot be impleaded as defendant in a case where presence of parties is necessary to enable the Court to deal with the subject in effective manner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 8. Now, on a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.02.2025, it can be seen that the Court below, having observed that the Court holds the discretionary power to implead and add parties for effective adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit, allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4. It further observed that though the remedy of respondent Nos.1 to 4 does not lie in the subject suit, their presence would be necessary for proper 9 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 adjudication of the title of the petitioners and their possession. If the proposed party has a cause of action against the plaintiff relating to the subject matter of the existing action, the Court has power to implead the proposed party so as to give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. It is also a well settled that an order against the person without impleading him as a party and without giving an opportunity of hearing must be held to be bad in law. 9. In the case on hand, prima facie, the presence of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is necessary for a complete and final decision in question involved in the suit. Such person is indeed proper and distinguished from necessary party. Undisputedly, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 to 4 has no direct interest in the subject matter. The question as to what extent they have interest will be decided in the suit. Impleadment of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 would indeed avoid multiplicity of proceedings. If the petitioners succeed in convincing the Court below for grant of decree of injunction in the presence of respondent Nos.1 to 4, such decree binds the petitioners and the respondents. 10. In view of the same, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.320 of 2024 in O.S.No.366 of 2016 by exercising the powers of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10 VS,J CRP.No.751 of 2025 11. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:22.11.2025 Gss