APHC010534042023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2815/2023 Between: 1. MAIMIDI SRIKANTH, , S/O. LATE. SRIRAM MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NATIVE OF GALAVAILL VILLAGE, BALIJIPETA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING BANKERS COLONY, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BEHARA SUBASHINI, W/O LATE. PRAKASH RAO HINDU AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING IN. MALLAMPETA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MUNICPALITY, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. BEHARA SAI KIRAN, SIO. LATE. PRAKASH RAO, HINDU, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING IN MALLAMPETA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MUNICPALITY, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. MAMIDI MARKANDEYULU, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU, HINDU AGED 53 YEARS, RIO GALAVILLI VILLAGE, BALIJIPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 4. ALUBILLI SRIRAMMURTHY, S/O. PURSINAIDU, HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O GALAVILLI VILLAGE, BALIJIPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 5. VADDAPALLI SHYAMSUNDHRA, S/O. LATE. BANGARU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O GALAVILLI VILLAGE, BALIJIPETA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 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 topleased to revise the order of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbin in IA No.87/2023 in OS No.41/2018 dated 04.09.2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.41/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 The Court made by following ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is arose out of the order dated 04.09.2023passed in I.A.No.87of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of 2018 by thePrincipal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, allowing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the proposed parties in the suit proceedings. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.41 of 2018 and respondents 3 to 5 herein are the proposed petitioners, who sought to be impleaded as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.41 of 2018 against the defendants 1 and 2 for permanent injunction restraining them and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. While the things stood thus, the proposed petitioners filed I.A.No.87 of 2023 seeking to implead them as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit proceedings, on the ground that they purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2018 for a valid consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- from the defendants 1 and 2 and obtained possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till date; and that the plaintiff purposefully and willfully filed the suit with untrue allegations by omitting the petitioners by taking advantage of mentioning the survey number in the sale deed. On 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 consideration of the material and after hearing the parties, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, holding that the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to trespass into the suit land and the proposed parties are necessary and proper parties as their interest itself on the subject land is involved in the suit proceedings, allowed the petition and ordered the proposed petitioners to be impleaded as defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the court below erred in allowing the petition filed by the respondents 3 to 5 as no relief is sought against them by the revision petitioner and the plaint does not disclose any allegation against them. The Court below ought to have dismissed the petition as the sale of property in between the respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 5 herein shall not have any bearing or consequence in the suit filed by the revision petitioner as the issue involved in the suit for injunction simplicitor is only right of possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit and the interference of the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit property and that the presence of defendants 3 to 5 is not at all necessary for adjudication of the suit. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the court below is well justified in allowing the petition as the 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 outcome of the suit will have a bearing on the defendants 3 to 5 as their interest on the suit property itself is involved as they purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2, and hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 7. The only point that arises for consideration herein is whether the Court below is justified in allowing the petition filed for impleadment of proposed parties as defendants 3 to 5? 8. Before dealing with the issue herein, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which reads as under: (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. 9. 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it governs the striking out or adding the name of any party, at any stage of the proceedings, if it appears to be just and necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The issue involved herein is whether the proposed petitioners are necessary parties to the suit proceedings or not. Normally, in a suit for bare injunction, a subsequent purchaser is not automatically considered a necessary party and their impleadment is discretionary and depends on 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 factors like the nature of the dispute, whether the purchaser had notice of the ongoing litigation, and if their presence is crucial for a complete and effective adjudication of the case. If the subsequent purchaser is a bona fide buyer who was unaware of the litigation, courts are generally inclined to allow their joinder to protect their interests, but if the purchase was made with bad faith or knowledge of the pending suit, they may be excluded. If a subsequent purchaser is a bona fide buyer without any knowledge of the pending lawsuit, the court may allow them to join the proceedings to safeguard their interests. 10. As seen from the material on record, it is the claim of the petitioners who sought to be impleaded, that the plaintiff purposefully and willfully omitted them in arraying as parties to the suit taking advantage of wrongly mentioning the survey number in the sale deed dated 03.03.2018, even though boundaries and extent mentioned in the sale deed and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint are one and the same. Even in the written statement also, the claim of the defendants is that the plaintiff suppressed the gift deed executed by his father in respect of the land covered by Survey No.94/14 and 94/15 to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents.As stated supra, it is no doubt true that in a suit for bare injunction, a subsequent purchaser is not automatically considered a necessary party and their impleadment is discretionary and depends on factors like the nature of the dispute, whether the purchaser had notice of the ongoing litigation, and if their presence is crucial for a complete and effective adjudication of the case.On perusal of the 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 material on record, this court found that the court below, having come to a conclusion that the presence of the proposed petitioners is essential in adjudication of the suit as their interest on the suit property is indirectly involved, inasmuch as the defendants 1 and 2 from whom they purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed, are trying to trespass into their possession, allowed the petition.Whether the interest of the proposed petitioners on the suit property is involved or not, is a matter to be adjudicated by the court below exhaustively at the time of trial. The conclusions arrived at by the court below in ordering impleadment of the proposed petitioners are just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and they do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction, and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:11.09.2025 JLV/Ksn 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023 302 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2815/2023 Date:11.09.2025 JLV/Ksn 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.2815 of 2023