1 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 APHC010047162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 260/2025 Between: 1. SRI. MAHAYAJULA GIREESAM SARMA,, S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA DAS BAVAJI, HINDU, AGED 72 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.7-10-23/2, PUPPALLAVARI STREET, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. MATTA SUBBA RAO, S/O ANJANEYULU, R/O AT D.NO. 41-8-19/8, KRISHNA LANK, VIJAYAWADA. A.P 2. TELIA MANOJ KUMAR, S/O ISAAC, AGED 42 YEARS,R/O AT AMMANABROLU VILLAGE, N.G.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST 3. SMT PARITALA VENKATA PHANI RAJA SEETHA RAMA ANJALI, D/O LATE CH.LAKSHMANA RAO @ LAKSHMANA DAS, HINDU, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O AT AMMANABROLU VILLAGE, N.G.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DIST ...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 toThe above Revision is filed aggrieved by the orders Dated- 17-09- 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 2024 in l.A. 101 of 2023 IN O.S. 280 of 2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ongole 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. 280 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K PALLAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/proposed party aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in O.S.No.280 of 2016 whereby, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/proposed party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as „CPC‟), for impleading him as one of the defendants. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) Originally, the subject land to an extent of Acs.53.12 cents belongs to one late Chakravarthula Lakshmana Rao and during his life time, his wife and daughter – 2nd defendant, executed an agreement of sale dated 07.04.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. As the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed pursuant to the aforesaid agreement of sale, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2002 before the Court below; the said matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat vide award dated 19.07.2002. In spite of the same, the defendants did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. (b) Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants filed O.S.No.820 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 obtained a decree on 02.03.2015. Seeking cancellation of the decree dated 02.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.820 of 2014, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.280 of 2016. (c) It is the case of the proposed party that the mother of the 2nd defendant is his sister and succeeded all the properties after the demise of her husband i.e. Chakravarthula Lakshamanarao. Further, it is contended that the 2nd defendant obtained signatures on few papers and got fabricated certain documents pertaining to the land situated in Sy.No.30 to an extent of Acs.53.12 cents situated at Ammanabrolu village, Nagullupalapadu mandal, Prakasam district with a view to grab the same. It is the case of the proposed party that his sister i.e., mother of the 2nd defendant, before her death on 15.09.2020, executed a Will on 01.06.2020 bequeathing all the properties in his favour. The proposed party claim to be the owner of the suit schedule property, on the strength of the Will executed by the mother of the 2nd defendant on 01.06.2020. As such, the proposed party filed an application before the Court below under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, requesting the Court below to implead him as one of the defendants. (d) The Court below, vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, dismissed the application filed by the proposed party by opining that the presence of the proposed party is not necessary for deciding the issue 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 involved in the subject suit. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed party filed this civil revision petition. 3. Heard Ms. K. Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Perused the entire material available on record. Undisputedly, the subject suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of the decree passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole in O.S.No.820 of 2014, which was filed by the defendants. It is alleged that the defendant No.2 and her father executed an agreement of sale deed dated 07.04.1995 pertaining to the suit schedule land. However, as the defendants did not come forward for executing a registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2002 before the District Court, Ongole, however, due to the compromise entered between the parties, the said suit was closed on 19.07.2002. In spite of the same, as defendants did not allegedly come forward for executing a registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Pattadar Passbooks Act seeking regularization of sale of agreement. Thereafter, it is alleged that the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook in favour of the plaintiff recognizing his possession and title. 5. While the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of the decree dated 02.03.2015 was pending, the proposed party, on the strength of the Will executed by the mother of the 2nd defendant dated 01.06.2020, filed an 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 application in the subject suit seeking his impleadment as one of the defendants in the suit. For better appreciation, Order I Rule 10 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.” 5. 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. 6. 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 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 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. 7. Now, on a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, it can be seen that the Court below, having observed that the petitioner/proposed party is not necessary party and that his right, if any, has to be adjudicated before proper forum by appropriate proceedings, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. It is a well settled legal principle that 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 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 give effect to the primary object of the order which is to avoid multiplicity of actions. It is also well settled law 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. 8. In the case on hand, prima facie, the presence of the petitioner 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 petitioner has no direct interest in the subject matter. The proposed party claim to be the owner of the suit schedule property, on the strength of the Will executed by the mother of the 2nd defendant on 01.06.2020. The question as to what extent he has interest will be decided in the suit. Impleadment of the petitioner would indeed avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 9. Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. 10. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power over the subordinate Courts under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in “State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru1. 11. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 12. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order of the trial Court is erroneous as it has failed to exercise discretion properly and such finding is liable to be set aside by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 1 2003 (6) SCC 641 10 VS,J C.R.P.No.260 of 2025 13. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in O.S.No.280 of 2016 is hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:19.12.2025. Gss