APHC010595602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3242/2024 Between: 1. MEDISETTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MEDISETTI BALA TRIPURASUNDARI, W/O SRINIVASARAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. MEDISETTI KALYAN SIVA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. MEDISETTI VEERA SAMPURNA, (DIED ON 30-5-2021) 5. ARJA RADHA, W/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 6. ARJA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NARAYNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 7. ARJA NARAYANA RAO, (DIED ON 7-9-2024) (ALL ARE R/O D.NO.2-108-B, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VADAPALEM VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. JOGI VEERANJANEYULU, S/O JAGAN MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHINAPURAM VILLAGE BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT RESPONDENT/ 2 2. VATADI VENKATESWARLU, S/O ADINARAYANA RAO,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VEEMULADEEVI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...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 to set aside the order dated 3-12-2024 in I.A.No.879/2024 in O.S.No.449/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division) Machilipatnam and pass IA 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.449/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Machilipatnam and pass CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3244/2024 Between: 1. MEDISETTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. MEDISETTI BALA TRIPURASUNDARI, W/O SRINIVASARAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. MEDISETTI KALYAN SIVA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. MEDISETTI VEERA SAMPURNA, (DIED ON 30-5-2021). 5. ARJA RADHA, W/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 6. ARJA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O NARAYNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 7. ARJA NARAYANA RAO, (DIED ON 7-9-2024) (ALL ARE R/O D.NO.2-108-B, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VADAPALEM 3 VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. JOGI VEERANJANEYULU, S/O JAGAN MOHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHINAPURAM VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. VATADI VENKATESWARLU, S/O ADINARAYANA RAO,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VEEMULADEEVI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...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 to set aside the order dated 3-12-2024 in I.A.No.878/2024 in O.S.No.450/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division) Machilipatnam and pass IA 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.450/2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Machilipatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following: 4 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners herein filed O.S.No.450 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for permanent injunction against the 1st respondent herein. 2. Similarly, 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.449 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein. 3. In the said suits, the 1st respondent herein filed two separate interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.878 & 879 of 2024 to implead one Sri Vatadi Venkateswarulu s/o Sri Adinarayana Rao as proposed party (the 2nd respondent herein). The said two applications have been allowed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, separately under its order dated 03.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present two Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 4. As both the revision petitions are interlinked to each other, both the matters are heard and disposed of together. 5. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the affidavit filed 5 in support of the counters filed before the Court below submitted that when the 1st respondent tried to interfere with the petitioners’ suit schedule property in O.S.No.450 of 2019, the said suit has been filed for permanent injunction. Similarly, the 1st respondent who is the defendant in O.S.No.450 of 2019 also got filed a suit in O.S.No.449 of 2019 before the very same Court for permanent injunction duly claiming to be tenant of the petitioners. In fact, he is not a tenant at all is the stand taken by the petitioners before the Court below. Learned counsel further contended that, while things stood thus, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.878 of 2024 in the petitioners’ suit i.e., in O.S.No.450 of 2019 to bring on record the 2nd respondent herein as proposed defendant No.2 on the ground that in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent he has categorically stated that the 1st respondent is the tenant of the petitioners herein. To elicit the same and to prove that the 1st respondent is tenant of the petitioners, he wanted to bring him as co-defendant and accordingly, filed application under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure code. Learned counsel further contended that, after hearing the parties, the Court below erroneously allowed the said applications and permitted the 1st respondent to bring the 2nd respondent on record as party respondent-defendant No.2. In fact, he is neither necessary nor proper party. The Court below failed to see the purport of Order I Rule 10 in a 6 right perspective. When he is not a proper and necessary party, he cannot be brought on record as defendant. The petitioner being dominus litus, he cannot be compelled to bring on record any person with whom he does not want to fight. Similarly, in the suit filed by the 1st respondent also i.e., in O.S.No.449 of 2019, similar application vide I.A.No.879 of 2024 has been filed to bring the 2nd respondent as party defendant to his suit. Both the applications are allowed before the Court below erroneously. He further submitted that If at all, the 1st respondent wants to prove that he is a tenant of the petitioners, he can utmost bring the 2nd respondent as witness in the suits but he cannot bring him as co- defendant. If the said order is allowed to subsist, the rights of the petitioners will be affected, as such, prayed to allow the present Revision petitions. 9. On the other hand, Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the orders passed by the Court below submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the 2nd respondent is brought on record as co-defendant. The Court has to see whether any prejudice will be caused to the parties if any individual is brought on record as defendant. The Court below has rightly held and accordingly allowed the I.As. No grounds are raised or urged warranting interference of this Court, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revisions. 7 In the event if the Court is inclined to interfere, a liberty may be given to the 1st respondent to examine the proposed party as witness. 10. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.449 of 2019 against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction whereas the petitioners herein also filed suit in O.S.No.450 of 2019 for permanent injunction. Both the suits are pending before the same Court. To elicit that the 1st respondent is the tenant of the petitioners herein, the 1st respondent filed I.A.Nos.878 & 879 of 2024 in both the suits to bring the 2nd respondent as co-defendant in the suits. 12. The law is well settled that under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person may be added as a party to a suit if they are necessary or proper parties, and if their presence is required for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The plaintiffs are dominus litis, meaning they are the masters of the suit, and ordinarily the Court does not compel them to implead third parties as defendants against their wishes. However, where the presence of a third party is essential for the complete and final resolution of the dispute, and their non-impleadment would result in multiplicity of proceedings or leave 8 the controversy unresolved, the Court may exercise its discretion to add such party. If the trial Court improperly rejects an application for impleadment despite the necessity of such party, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional or supervisory jurisdiction, may interfere and permit the party to be brought on record in the interest of justice. 13. The only reason for bringing the 2nd respondent as co-defendant is that in one of the suits filed by the proposed party, the 1st respondent is defendant wherein he has pleaded that the 1st respondent is the tenant of the petitioners herein. To elicit the same, now the 1st respondent wants to bring him as party defendant in the subject suits. 14. As could be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the said individual i.e., the 2nd respondent is neither necessary nor proper party. If at all, the 1st respondent, he can bring him as witness to the subject suits. For that said purpose, he need not be brought on record as defendant. The Court below erroneously allowed the said applications, as such, the present Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the I.A.Nos.878 of 2024 in O.S.No.450 of 2019 & 879 of 2024 in O.S.No.449 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, are dismissed. However, the 1st respondent is not precluded to examine the 9 proposed party during the trial as witnesses if required or advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 10th February, 2026 RKS