High Court dismissed multiple civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's order allowing subsequent mortgagees to be impleaded as defendants in prior mortgagee suits, holding them to be necessary parties despite partial property sale.
All civil revision petitions dismissed; no costs; interim orders vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI - WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER.
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO ^ PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
CRP Nos. 6170^,6331.6y^9.634D.63<M.6342.6343.634e;6365.64:^1.644 0.6445.6454. 6545.6546.6547.6548.6549.6774 and7362 of 2017.
CRP No. 6170 of 2017 ^
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1500 of 2013 in O.S. No. 46 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between:
Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o Yerukala Reddy Aged 44\years, Occ: Business R/o 4-125, Velgode village and Mandal Kurnool District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND
Muttumula Rajeswar Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy Aged 49 years,R/oPlotNo 102 Teja Apartments Tekke, Nandyal, Kurnool District .2. Datia Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o Rama Gopal Reddy Aged 52 years, R/o 25/621, Nandyal Kurnool District / 3. Munagala Vijaya Bhaskar Redcfy, S/o Thirupal Reddy Aged 55 years, R/o Ponnapuram village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. Respondents/Plaintiffs/Proposed Defendants 4r K. Siddaiah, S/o Mallaiah Aged 60 years, Vijayavani Public School, Balaii
Respondents/Plaintiffs/Proposed Defendants
Respondent/Respondent No.2/Defendatnt No.1
- Indian Overseas bank, rep by its Manager, Nandyal, Kurnool District
Respondent/Respondent No.3/Defendatnt No.2
The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, Regional Office, Bank Street Koti, Hyderabad.
Respondent/Respondent No.4/Defendatnt No.3
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 7972 OF 2017)
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. 46 of 2010 on the file of Court of Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
r
<br>
CRP 6331 of 2017
between:’
Annarapu Seshi Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy Occ: Business R/oH.No.18-195-6 Velgode village and Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8165 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the HighCourtmaybepleasedtograntedstay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. 55 of 2010 on thefileofCourtof Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposaloftheaboverevisionpetition.
CRP No. 6339 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1504of2013inO.S.No^lof2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge,Kurnool.
Between:
Bonnuru Rama Linga Reddy S/o Seetha Rami Reddy, Occ:Business R/o H. No. 2-2, Velgode village and Mandal KurnoolDistrict.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Plaintiff
AND
3
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017{CRPMP. NO: 8174 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. 51 of 2010 on thefileofCourtof3’’''Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6340 of 2017 n/
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1^5of2013 in O.S. No. 52 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between:
Bommi Reddy Rama Krishna Reddy S/o Rama Subba Reddy aged about 44 years Occ; Business, R/o Rillapadu village Midthur MandalKurnoolDistrict.
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017tCRPMP. NO: 8175 OF 20171
Petition under Section 151 QP€ praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. ^ of 2010 on thefileofCourtof 3'^'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP 6341 nf9ni7 Civil Revision Petition under Artirip 997 +u of India aggrieved by the Order dt.20.10 2017 ^ Constitution O.S.No.49 of 2010 on thp file nf fk Passed in I.A.No. 1502 of 2013 in Kurnool. Court of the III Additional Districr Judge
H
AND
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO: 8176 OF 20171
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 49 of 2010 on the file of Court of 3^'' Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6342 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1507^2013 in O.S. No. 54 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between:
Poreddy Srirami Reddy S/o Bomi Reddy aged about 72 years Occ; Landlord R/o H. No. 87-942-1, Telecom Nagar, Kurnool Town, KurnoolDistrict.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 AND
5
of further proceedings in O.S. No. 54 of 2010 on the file of Court of Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6343 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1509 of 2013 in O.S. No. 56 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between;
Ganthi Anki Reddy S/o Papi Reddy aged about 54 yearsOcc:Business R/o Velpanur Village, Velgodu Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Defendant No.4
AND
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
LA. NO; 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO; 8178 OF 2017^
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. 56 of 2010 on the file of Court of Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6346 of 201
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1506 of 2013 in O.S. No^3 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between: Gali Rama Chandra Reddy, S/o. Ayyapu Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o. Balaji Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool district.
AND
1.
2.
3.
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO: 8181 of 20171
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 53 of 2010 on the file of Court of O"'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6365 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1501 of 2013 in O.S. No. 48 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between:
Lingala Siva Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy, Occ: Business R/o Velpanur Village, Velgodu Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.l/Defendant No.1 AND
25/621, Nandyal Kurnool District ^
Comlex, Nandyal, Kurnool District
6 “TumonSomc"''’ Nandyal, Kurnool District D. I ne authorised officer, Indian Overseas bank Ltd Regional office. Bank
Street Koti, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS
7
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPIVIP. NO: 8199 OF 2017>
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 48 of 2010 on thefileofCourtof3"''Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6421 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 114^^of20143inO.S.No.51of2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
Between:
B. Rama Linga Reddy S/o Sitha Rami Reddy Occ; Business R/o 2-2,Velpanur Village, Velgodu Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Defendant No.4
AND
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO: 8264 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. NO. 51 of 2010 on the file of Court of 3'^^ Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6440 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1153 of 2014 in O.S. No. 56 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
AND
Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7/Proposed Parties
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8281 OF 2017). X Petition under Section 151 CPC prying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 56^ 2010 on thefileofCourtof Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6445 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1147 of 2014 in O.S. No. 53 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool Between: _
G. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Ayyapuy Subba Reddy Aged 54 years, R/o D.No. 2-428-124-B, Balaji Complex, Nandyal Kurnool District
...PETITIONER
/
AND
\
...RESPONDENTS
/
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017fCRPMP. NO: 8281 OF 20171
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 56 of 2010 on the file of Court of 3^'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6454 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1137^f 2014 in O.S. No. 1^8 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Between:
L. Siva Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy Aged 41 years, R/o Velpanur village Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool District
...PETITIONER
/
...RESPONDENTS
ID
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 48 of 2010 ^n the file of Court of Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition. CRP No. 6545 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1135 of 2014 in O.S. No. 46 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Between:
D. Sreenivasa Reddy S/o Yerukala Reddy R/o D. No. 4-125, R/oVelpanur Village, Velgodu Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/ /Defendant No./Plaintiff
AND
Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7/Proposed Parties
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8389 OF 20171
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 4^f 2010 on thefileofCourtofO"'*Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6546 of 2017 ^
//
Between:
P. Srirami Reddy, S/o Bhumi Reddy Aged 76 years, R/oH.No. 87-942-1 Telecom Nagar, Kurnool Kurnool District
...PETITIONER
AND
\
...RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8390 OF 20171
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 54 of 2010 on the file of Court of O"'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6547 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1151 of 2014 in O.S. No. 55 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, Aged 76 years, R/o VelugoduVillage&Mandal, Kurnool District ...PETITIONER
IL
' X
5. S. Ram Mohan Reddy, S/o S. Subba Reddy Aged 41 years R/of Bulckaouram
6. ^ll^e, Thimrriapuram Post Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District
Reddy Aged about 50 years, R/o H.No 404
Ram Sai Enclave, Nandyal, Kurnool District ’
7.
T '^.^h®swari, W/o G. Bhupal Redd Aged about 50 years, R/o H No 1/16
Konidedu village. Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District
8. R ^ -n Mallaiah Aged about 56 years. Correspondent, Vijayavani TM &
EM Sch Balaji Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool Distric jc«y<ivdm
9. Indian Overseas bank. Rep by its Manager, Nandyal, Kurnool District
^° KSh,^Hjderabad°^''®'’ Overseas bank Ltd, Regional office. Bank Street
/
...RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8391 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 55 of 2010 on the file of Court of 3'*^ Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition. CRP No. 6548 of 2017 ^
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1139 of 2014 in O.S. No. 49 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Between:
. Ramesh Babu S/o Eswaraiah .
...Petitioner/ /Defendant No./Piaintiff
AND
.8. K. Siddaiah, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 56 years. Correspondent, Vijayavani TM & EM Sch Balaji Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool Distric
/
...RESPONDENTS
/3
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8392 OF 2017^^
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 granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 49 of 2010 on the file of Court of 3^'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 6549 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 'o^ the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No.^45 of 2014 in O.S. No^2 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Between:
Rama Krishna Reddy S/o B. Rama Subba Reddy '4R/0 D. No. 1-84, Rollapadu Village, Midthur Mandal Kurnool District.
...Petitioner/ /Defendant No.l/Plaintiff
AND
Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 7/Proposed Parties
^^ K^h 'Hydef'^b'd^^'^®'^’
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8393 OF 2017)
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 granted stay
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1511 of 2013 in O.S. No. 59 of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Between:
1.
2.
3.
Ramsetty Srinivasulu, S/o Chinna Pullaiah
Nandyal, Kurnool District. aged about 40 years, R/o Nadigadda,
/
...PETITIONER
AND
Muttumula Rajeswar Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy Aged 49 years, R/o Plot No. 102,
Teja Apartments Tekke, Nandyal, Kurnool District
Datia Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o Rama Gopal Reddy Aged 52 years, R/o
25/621, Nandyal Kurnool District
Munagala Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Thirupal Reddy Aged 55 years, R/o
Ponnapuram village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.
Respondents/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3/Proposed Parties
4.
5.
6.
K. Siddaiah, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 56 years. Correspondent, Vijayavani TM &
EM School Balaji Complex, Nandyal, Kurnool District
Indian Overseas bank. Rep by its Manager, Nandyal, Kurnool District
The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas bank Ltd, Regional office. Bank Street
Koti, Hyderabad
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
I.A. NO:
1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8691 OF 2017t
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 59 of 2010 on the file of Court of O"'* Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal pending disposal of the above revision petition.
CRP No. 7362 of 2017
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Aggrieved by the order dt. 20.10.2017 Passed in I.A. No. 1^ of 2014 in O.S. No. pQ of 2010 on the file of Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Between:
Rarnisetty Srinivasulu, S/o Chinna Pullaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o Nadigadda Nandyal, Kurnool District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.
B.Koteswar Reddy, S/o Nagireddy aged about 63 years, Advocate, H.No. 58/3
Chdambar Rao Street, Kurnool Kurool District.
\
i
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 8393 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to granted stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 59 of 2010 on thefileofCourtof3^'^Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyai pending disposal of the above revision petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. R. S. SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 &3: SRI O. MANOHERREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. SURYANARAYANA
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
■BSSJ C.n.Py.Ncry.6170 of 2017 a-nd'hcctch
1
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
Civil Revision Petitions No. 6170, 6331. 6339. 6340, 6341. 6342. 6343, 6346, 6365, Wl. 6440. 6445. 6454. 6545. 6546. 6547. 6548. 6549. 6774 and 7362 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of similar orders passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, in interlocutory applications filed by proposed parties under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) on the same day indifferentsimilar suits. Since the question of law and issues, which arise to be dealt with in all these Civil Revision Petitions is similar and the matters are A distinct only in their respective facts and events, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by common order.
BSSJ C.K.Py.Noi-.eiTO of 2017 cvnd/hatch
2
| SLNo. | C.R.P.Number | I.A.Number | O.S.Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6170/2017 | 1500/2013 | 46/2010 |
| 2 | 6331/2017 | 1508/2013 | 55/2010 |
| 3 | 6339/2017 | 1504/2013 | 51/2010 |
| 4 | 6340/2017 | 1505/2013 | 52/2010 |
| 5 | 6341/2017 | 1502/2013 | 49/2010 |
| 6 | 6342/2017 | 1507/2013 | 54/2010 |
| 7 | 6343/2017 | 1509/2013 | 56/2010 |
| 8 | 6346/2017 | 1506/2013 | 53/2010 |
| 9 | 6365/2017 | 1501/2013 | 48/2010 |
| 10 | 6421/2017 | 1143/2014 | 51/2010 |
| 11 | 6440/2017 | 1153/2014 | 56/2010 . |
| 12 | 6445/2017 | 1147/2014 | 53/2010 |
| 13 | 6454/2017 | 1137/2014 | 48/2010 |
| 14 | 6545/2017 | 1135/2014 | 46/2010 |
| 15 | 6546/2017 | 1149/2014 | 54/2010 |
| 16 | 6547/2017 | 1151/2014 | 55/2010 |
| 17 | 6548/2017 | 1139/2014 | 49/2010 |
| 18 | 6549/2017 | 1145/2014 | 52/2010 |
| 19 | 6774/2017 | 1511/2013 | 59/2010 |
| 20 | 7362/2017 | 1157/2014 | 59/2010 |
BSSJ C.n.Py.Noy.6170 of 2017 (Mvd/hcitch/
3
- The case of proposed defendants before the trial Court in brief is that they are third parties and they also filed suit against second respondent/D1 for recovery of their mortgage debt dated10.03.2008 wherein they added all the subsequent mortgagees. Theysubmitthat the first respondents/plaintiffs, who are revision petitioners herein, filed suits, wherein purposefully avoided to implead them as defendants. It is also the contention of proposed parties that they being subsequent mortgagees are necessary parties to the suit filed by first respondents/plaintiffs as per Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC. They have stated that R2/D1 mortgaged entire 49 cents of land to them, whereas portion of land alone is mortgaged to first respondents/plaintiffs though it is prior mortgage. They pray to implead them asdefendantsinthe suits being subsequent mortgagees. The petitioners/plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed counters denying averments in the affidavits of proposed parties. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs that proposed parties being subsequent mortgagees are not necessary parties to the suit as property under mortgage was already sold by the bank and thereafter, deposited balance of sale consideration amount after appropriatingthedebtdue to them. They also submit that proposed parties filed writ petition and got orders and they intended to implead as parties to the suit though
BSSJ C.n.Py.Nay.6170 of 2017 cuid/hcUcK
4
their right to redemption extinguished as there is no property available. It is the contention of revision petitioners/first respondents/plaintiffs in the suits that the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties. They pray to dismiss the revision petitions.
- After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the petitions filed by the proposed defendants and directed the revision petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding the proposed parties as defendants in the suits.
- Aggrieved by the orders passed by Court below, revision petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the above referred ten suits, have preferred 20 revision petitions with similar grounds. It is the contention of revision petitioners that trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC and also misread the ratio laid down in Soli Pestonji Vs. Gangadhar\ They submit that trial Court failed to see that provisions of Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory, which are only directory and trial Court erred in holding that the attachment of amount made by the revision petitioners in the suits cannot prevail over the puisne mortgagee. They pray to allow the revision petitionsanddismissthe
AOR 1969 SC 600
BSSJ C.n.Py.hJoi-.GlTO of 2017 a4xd/hatch
5
petitions filed by proposed parties to implead them as respondents in the suits filed by them.
- The learned counsel for the revision petitioners mainlycontended that admittedly proposed defendants are subsequent mortgagees and now there is no mortgaged property, which already sold by them for recovery of their debt and rerriaining sale proceedsalonehavebeen deposited by filing inter-pleadary suit, which also dismissed and thereafter revision petitioners filed petition to sent for the amounts, which they are entitled basing on mortgage deed executed by R2/D1 in all suits in their favour. He would submit that Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC is only a procedural law, which will not over right provisionsofSection60 of Transfer of Property Act. He would further submits that as per Section 91 of Transfer of Property Act, proposed parties are not necessarily be impleaded in the suit filed by prior mortgagee when their mortgaged property is not available. It is the contention of learned counsel for revision petitioners that plaintiffs cannot be forced to fight against the person whom they are not intended to fight. He argued that right to redemption by the proposed parties already extinguished and
-BSSJ C.n.Py.Nay.6170 of 2017 cuid/hatch
6
Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC cannot be read in isolation, which has to be read along with Order XXXIV Rule 13 CPC, as no moneyexcesstothe money due to the revision petitioners in all the suits is available, no purpose will be served to implead proposed parties as defendants in the suits filed by the revision petitioners. He relied on following precedent law:
He prays to allow the revision petitions.
^ (2017) 8 Supreme Court Cases 272 ^ (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 727 1969(1) Supreme Court Cases 220 ^ AIR 1997 AP 53
® AIR 1960 Rajasthani
■BSSJ C.K.Py.hJoy.6170 of 2017 and/bcvtch/
7
- The learned Senior Counsel Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, representingfor the respondents would submit that admittedly revision petitioners have not mortgagees of entire property and they are mortgagees of portion of properties though they are prior mortgagees. Hewould further submit that bank sold entire two items of the property consisting of 49 cents 620 links and have appropriated portion of sale proceeds towards their loan amount and deposited the remaining amountin the interpleadary suit filed by them, which shows portion of sale proceeds in respect of sale of entire mortgaged property deposited in the suit, whereas revision petitioners are mortgagees of portion of properties and amount lying in the suits filed by revision petitionerswhichamountsent for from inter-pleadary suit filed by the bank includes sale proceeds of entire mortgaged property. thereby proposed parties though subsequent mortgagees for entire property are necessary parties to the suits filed by the mortgagees in view of Order XXXIVRule 1 CPC. He also relied on Section 91 of Transfer of Property Act. The learned Senior Counsel relied on following precedent law:
^2002(3) ALT 424
BSSJ C.K.Py.No^.6170 of 2017 cuTidy hatch
8
of Transfer of Property Act and held that decree in a mortgage suit does not bind a person having interest in the equity of redemption if he was not a party to the suit and the mortgagee will have the remedy of instituting a fresh suit against a person so omitted if the cause of action is within the limitation and that the defect on account of noncompliance of Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC, which crept into the decree cannot be cured on account of the person so omitted coming to the suit at a later stage.
He prays to dismiss the revision petitions.
- Now, the point that emerges for consideration by thisCourtinall the revision petitions is: "Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?
- POINT: Though learned counsels representing both sides have submitted with regard to the rights of subsequent mortgagee. no
BSSJ C.n.Py.Noi-.6170 of 2017 a^\d/hixtch/
9
precedent law is submitted in respect of Order I Rule 10 CPC, which explains with regard to necessary and proper parties,whichreadsas follows:
“Order I Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such .terms as the Court thinks just. (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 theCourttobe 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.
(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing withouta next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.
BSSJ C.TZ.P.yNoy.6170 of 2017 cf^nd/hcitch
10
(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be_ amended-Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copes of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.
(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added, as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.”
- A reading of above provision of law makes it abundantlyclearthat parties to the suit are of two kinds, viz. necessary party and property party. ‘A necessary party’ is a party without whom suit cannot be decided. ‘A proper party’ is a party in whose absence suit will not be defeated. Hence, non-joinder of necessary party is fatal to the suit and non-joinder of proper party is not fatal to the suit. Also, proper party is a party against whom any relief has not been sought. The question of necessary party and proper party has to be looked with utmost due diligence with an object to avoid multiplicity of litigations and proceedings.
B5SJ C.n.?yh^(n-.6170 of 2017 cwid/hu^tchy
11
“Parties To Suits For Foreclosure, Sale And Redemption:-
Subject to the provisions of this Code, all persons having an interest either in the mortgage-security or in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to the mortgage.
•Explanation-
A puisne mortgagee may sue for foreclosure or for salewithout
2015(2) ALT 44 (SC)
B55J C.K.Py.Nc^.6170 of 2017 ayid/hatch-
12
making the prior mortgagee a party to the suit; and a prior mortgagee need not be joined in a suit to redeem a subsequent mortgage.” 15. On bare'reading of above referred provision, which makes it clear that all persons having an interest either in the mortgaged security or in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties to any suit relating to a mortgage. This Court in P.Govinda Reddy Vs. Golla Obulamma^ also explained the scope of Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC and held that as per Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC,, all those persons interested in the right to redemption or in the security have to be joined as parties to the suit. The object of the rule is to enable the Courts to do full justice to the parties according to their rights and liabilities as under law.
- The ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by bothsides is in respect of rights of subsequent mortgagee and extinguishing right to redemption when no mortgaged property is available, which can only be considered at the time of final disposal of the case, not in a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the proposeddefendants.
® 1971 AIR (AP) 363(FB)
BSSJ C.n.Py.hJoy.6170 of 2017 cuid/hatcK
13
during the pendency of the suits filed by mortgagees against R4/D1, who also shown Indian Overseas Bank as D2 in the suits. Admittedly, D2 bank sold entire property of R4/D1/mortgager by invoking provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFACIE Act). Thereafter, Indian Overseas Bank sold entire property of R4/D1 in public auction, got sale proceeds of Rs.5,34,50,000/- and then appropriated their dues and deposited the balance amount of Rs.3,54,41,556/into the Court by filing interpleadary suit in O.S.No.20 of 2011 on the file of same Court and the said suit was dismissed on 23.12.2013 and thereafter, revision petitioners herein having filed individual petitions in their suits,sentfordifferent amounts which are due by R4/D1 basing on mortgage andsaidamounts are lying in the suits filed by the revision petitioners, which prima facie shows that portion of amounts sent for by revision petitioners in ten original suits referred above, which is portion of amount in respect of sale of entire mortgaged property of R4/D1. Admittedly, revision petitioners herein are not mortgagees of entire property and they are mortgagees of portion of properties, whereas proposed parties are though subsequent mortgagees, it is for entire property of R1/R4, which sold by the bank invoking provisions of SARFACIE Act,whichshowsthat the portion of sale proceeds sent for from inter-pleadary suit filed by
85SJ C.n.Py.Noy.6170 of 2017 cLnd/'hatch'
14
the bank to the suits filed by the revision petitioners,duetothat it cannot be said that proposed defendants have no interest in the security or mortgaged property.
- The learned trial Judge rightly held that mortgaged property has only changed its shape and not totally extinguished,duetothathe allowed the petitions filed by the proposed defendants to come on record in the suits filed by the revision petitioners. The rights of revision petitioners being prior mortgagees and whether proposed defendants have lost their right of redemption can only be decided in the main suit not in the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC. When admittedly proposed defendants are also subsequent mortgagees in respect of entire property of R4/D1, which was sold by the bank in public auction and portion of amount available in the suits filed by the revision petitioners, it cannot be said that proposeddefendantsarenot necessary parties to the suits. The proposed parties,whoalso filed suits for their mortgaged debt and when mortgaged property is not available and sale proceeds are available in the suits filed by revision petitioners, certainly they are necessary and also proper parties to the suits filed by revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are at liberty to put forth their case before trial Court with regard to the alleged
3SSJ C.n.Py.Noy.6170 of 2017 ayid/hxxtch
15
extinguishing rights of proposed defendants which trial Court shall decide in the suits after adducing evidence by bothsides.
- This Court did not find any illegality or irregularityintheorders passdd by learned trial Judge warranting interference of this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is made clear that if anything discussed in the present revision petitions with regard to the merits of the case, it is for the disposal of the present civil revision petitions. It shall not come in the way of the trial Court while considering the plea of the revision petitioners with regard to rights of redemption by the proposed defendants,whichshall be decided by the trial Court on its own merits after considering the ratio laid down by the decisions relied on by both parties.
vacated.
SD/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTK^N^RCER
//TRUE COPY// / To, 1. The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. One CC to Sri M R S Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CCto Sri O. Manoher Reddy (OPUC) 4. One CC to Sri K. Suryanarayana .Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD copies.
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/11/2022
COMrv^ON ORDER
ANDH^
m
X 2 3 AUG 202** Co
^ Current Section
CRP.Nos. 6170'6531,6339.6340.6341 ,6346,6365,6421 ■6440.6445.6454. " ' 6545,6546,6547,6548.6549,6774 and7362x)f 2017
Dismissing the CRPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether subsequent mortgagees advancing their claims from interpleader proceeds are necessary parties to prior mortgagee suits under Order XXXIV Rule 1 CPC
Whether the trial court erred in allowing impleadment of proposed defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC against refusal of plaintiffs
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allokam PeddabbayyaReferred¶347
Allokam Peddabbayya and another Vs. Allahabad Bank
Jamila BegumReferred¶348
Jamila Begum Vs. Shami Mohd
Soli Pestonji MajooReferred¶349
Soli Pestonji Majoo Vs. Gangadhar Khomka
Habeeb KhanReferred¶350
Habeeb Khan Vs. Valasula Devi
Lachhmi NarainReferred¶351
Lachhmi Narain Vs. Kalyan
P.Govinda ReddyReferred¶388
P.Govinda Reddy Vs. Golla Obulamma
Areti MarammaReferred¶358
Areti Maramma Vs. State Bank of India
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sreenivasa Reddy
Bonnuru Rama Linga Reddy
Ganthi Anki Reddy
Poreddy Srirami Reddy
Lingala Siva Reddy
B. Rama Linga Reddy
Bandaru Syamsunder
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
