Allowed¶89

Takkoli Maheswar Reddy v. Nimmakayala Veera Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2025CRP/1107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; CRP No.1107 of 2024; Justice V. Sujatha; decision 04-09-2025; impleadment of third party; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; Section 151 CPC; necessary party; proper party; Dominus litis; permanent injunction simpliciter; suit for declaration as remedy of aggrieved third party; O.S.No.270 of 2020, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa; I.A.No.589 of 2021; interim stay dated 10.05.2024; impleadment order set aside; revision allowed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.02.2024 in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 (impleading respondent No.1 as defendant No.2) set aside; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶89

Takkoli Maheswar Reddy Vs Nimmakayala Veera… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1/third party is a necessary or proper party to O.S.No.270 of 2020 (suit for permanent injunction simpliciter) such that his impleadment as defendant No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was justified. +1 more

¶66

Court's answer

The crucial test for impleading any party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, is whether the 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 with regard to the same subject matter.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter (not for declaration), where the plaintiff claims right over the property through DKT.No.23/1393 dated 30.04.1984 and the third party claims ancestral possession, the third party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party; if aggrieved by the plaintiff's possession, he may file a suit for declaration against the plaintiff.

¶67

Key takeaways

Since the question to be decided in the suit is only whether to grant permanent injunction against respondent No.2/defendant, the proposed third party need not come on record; mere absence of prejudice to the plaintiff and defendant is not a ground for the trial court to have impleaded the third party.ratio¶69
The civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 is set aside, with no order as to costs.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (Article 227, Constitution of India) - Impleadment of third party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC - Suit O.S.No.270 of 2020 was for permanent injunction simpliciter, plaintiff claiming possession through DKT.No.23/1393 dated 30.04.1984 - Third party asserting ancestral possession is neither a necessary nor a proper party to such a suit; his remedy lies in filing a separate suit for declaration - Crucial test for impleadment is whether the party's presence is necessary or proper for effective and final adjudication of all issues - Absence of prejudice to existing parties is not a ground for impleadment - Trial court's order dated 28.02.2024 in I.A.No.589 of 2021 adding the third party as defendant No.2 set aside; revision allowed without costs.

¶1

APHC010230642024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1107 OF 2024

¶7

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 28-02-2024, passed in I.A.No.589 of²⁰²¹ in O.S.No.270 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Takkoli Maheswar Reddy, S/o Pedda Nagi Reddy, aged 63 years. Cultivation, R/o. C.Kothapalle Village, Valluru Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

Nimmakayala Veera Reddy, S/o Nimmakayala Eswar Reddy, aged 38 years. Cultivation, R/o. Chilukurukothapalle Village^& Post, Valluru Mandal, YSR District.

¶12

...Respondent/Third Party

¶13

1. Sivalingam Ramu, S/o. Dasaraiah, aged 48 years, Agriculture, R/o D.No.7/15, C.Kothapalle Village, Valluru Mandal, YSR^District. ...Respondent/Defendant/Respondent No.2

*• ,■

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC, praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the, petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in p.S.No. 270 of 2020^{onthefileofHon’ble} III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. M.Siva Jyothi Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: — The Court made the following Order:

¶20

¶21

;^PHC010230642024

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3333]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1107/2024

¶29

getween:

¶30

1.TAKKOLI MAHESWAR REDDY, S/0 PEDDA NAGI REDDY AGED⁶³ YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/0 C.KOTHAPALLE VILLAGE VALLURU MAN DAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

1.NIMMAKAYALA VEERA REDDY, S/0 NIMMAKAYALA ESWAR REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/0 CHILUKURUKOTHAPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, VALLURU MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶34

2.SIVALINGAM RAMU, S/0 DASARAIAH AGED 48 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/0 D.NO.7/15 C.KOTHAPALLE VILLAGE,VALLURU MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT.

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying^thatinthe 1 * circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the^{HighCourtmaybe} pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition having^{beenaggrievedby} the Order dated 28-02-2024 passed in I.A.No.589 of²⁰²¹ in O.S.No.270 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Junior^{CivilJudge,Kadapa}

¶37

^O: 1 OF 2024

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} jn the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased}

Pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 270^{of2020onthefileof} Hon’ble III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and pass

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

1.M SIVA JYOTHI

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶46

1 - A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 on the file of Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

¶51

The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before^{theCourtbelow} seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants^{andtheirfollowers} from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Pending the said suit, the respondent No. 1/third party filed I.A.No.589 of 2021 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with^{Section151ofCode} of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), stating that the suit schedule property belongs to his ancestors and the same derived upon^{himandthatheisinits} absolute possession and enjoyment since many decades,^{assuch,requested} the Court below to implead him as second defendant in the suit. In reply, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying^{theavermentsmadebythe} third party and stated that the aforesaid application^{wasfiledbythethirdparty} with a malicious intent to defeat the legitimate claim and right of the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below, after going^{throughthematerialavailable} before it, has passed orders in I.A.No.589 of 2021 dated 28.02.2024^duly observing as under:

¶52

“10. It is settled law that, the matter must be decided on merits. On hearing of both parties and taking of relevant evidence. It is the^{contentionofthepetitionerthathe} is the absolute owner and he has been in possession of suit schedule property, the petitioner should be given with an opportunity^toproduce the evidence for

¶53

¶54

deciding the issue involved in this suit. Therefore, this court opinions that if the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the suit by adding him as defendant No.2 the Court can adjudicate the matter effectually and completely and settled all the questions involved in the suit. If this petitioner^{isallowedthematterisnottocause} any prejudice to the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is at liberty and he has every opportunity to cross examine the petitioner on all material aspects. Therefore if the petitioner is added as party the present suit, the matter can be decided on merits. The very endeavor of the Court should be to ensure that all relevant available materials should be come on record which can effectually and conclusively adjudicate the dispute between parties. In that circumstances this Court feels that it is necessary to add the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the present suit accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioner.

¶55

In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is added as defendant No.2 in the main suit. Plaintiff is directed to make necessary amendment of plaint and to file neat copy of plaint.”

¶56

Aggrieved by the above referred order dated 28.02.2024 the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

¶57

When the petition came up for admission on 10.05.2024 this Court has passed an interim order staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.270 of 2020 on the file of Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, initially for a period of two weeks and the same was extended from time to time.

¶58

Heard Smt. M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶59

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit is filed for permanent injunction and that the petitioner being the author and ‘Dominus litis’ can proceed against a person against whom he has grievance and that the respondent herein is not necessary party to the suit and if he has any grievance, he has other remedies under

¶60

¶61

law. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner requested^to set-aside the order dated 28.02.2024.

¶62

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand contends that the order dated 28.02.2024 is faultless in all aspects^{andcontendedthatthe} respondent No.1 is proper and necessary party for effective disposal of the suit. As such,, requested this Court to dismiss the revision petition.

¶63

Admittedly, I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with^Section151 of C.P.C. As such, it would be appropriate to refer to the said provision, which deals with the power of the Court to strike out or add parties^andthesame is extracted hereunder:

¶64

“10(2) Court may strike out or add parties-The Court^{mayatanystage} of the proceedings, either upon or without the application^{ofeitherparty,} 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^{ordefendant,be} struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought^tohavebeen joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose^{presencebeforethe} Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court^{effectuallyand} completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions^involved in the suit, be added.”

¶65

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^{disputerelatingtosubject} matter so that dispute may be determined without delay,^{inconvenienceand} expenses of separate actions. The Court may be in a^{positiontoadjudicate} upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit^{betweentheparties.} If

¶66

the Court is satisfied that the parties are to be impleaded as proper and necessary 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. 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 with regard to the same subject matter.

¶67

Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the subject suit against the 2"^^ respondent/defendant herein for permanent injunction by restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It has to be observed that the said suit is for injunction simpliciter and not for declaration. In the subject suit petitioner/plaintiff is claiming his right over the property through DKT.No.23/1393 , dated 30.04.1984. On the other hand, respondent No. 1/third party contended that his family is in possession of the suit schedule land since many decades. If at all the 1*' respondent/third party is aggrieved by the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the subject land he may file a suit for declaration against the petitioner/plaintiff. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that the 1"' respondent/third party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, No doubt, the parties are to be impleaded as proper^and necessary for adjudication of all the issues, if such party has direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, invariably it is required to implead such a person as a

¶68

¶69

party to the proceedings, but, in the case on hand,^{whenthesuitisfiledbythe} petitioner/plaintiff against the 2'^'^ respondent/defendant^{onlytorestrainthe} respondent No.2/defendant from interfering with the^{suitscheduleproperty,} there is no such necessity for impleading the respondent/third party. When the question to be decided in the suit is whether to^{grantpermanentinjunction} against the respondent No.2/defendant, the proposed^party i.e. respondent No. 1/third party need not come on record to adjudicate^{thesaidissue.Just} because it would not cause any prejudice to the case^{ofthepetitioner/plaintiff} and respondent No.2/defendant, the Court below ought^{nottohaveimpleaded} the 1®* respondent/third party by allowing the application^{filedbythepetitioner.}

¶70

In view of the foregoing discussion, this civil revision^{petitionisallowed} and the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.589 of 2021 in O.S.No.270^{of2020isset-aside.} There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also

¶72

stand closed.

¶73

Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,