Allott interpreting Order I Rule 10 CPC and Article 227 Constitution, held that a person claiming title over suit property may come on record in a suit for injunction. Dismissed the revision against the order admitting the respondent.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2009
Between :
Jagadish and others. .... PETITIONERS
A N D
Zakir Unissa Begum and another …RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 09.04.2009 in I.A. No.367 of 2008 in O.S.No. 378 of 2008, on the file of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to implead first respondent as a party to the suit, was allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no relief can be granted in favour of the first respondent and that this is only a suit for injunction simplicitor against the Municipal Corporation and the party added had no direct interest in the litigation and therefore, he prays to set aside the order.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent
contended that the first respondent is having some semblance of right inasmuch as she is claiming title over the suit schedule property to safeguard her interest to come on record and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision.
4. Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads thus:
5. The suit was filed only for injunction simplicitor against the municipality not to interfere with the construction in the petition schedule premises. The suit is at the stage of trial . No doubt, no relief can be granted against the first respondent her right has to be protected. The title of the parties relating to the suit schedule property cannot be determined in a suit for injunction, but incidentally, the prima facie title has to be looked into and decided in the main suit, so as to grant injunction. Though the first respondent is not a party to the suit and no injunction is granted against her, since she is claiming title over the suit schedule property to safeguard her interest, the trial court rightly allowed the petition filed by the first respondent to come on record. There can not be any dispute that when the proposed party has got some semblance of right in respect of the property in question, she can come on record. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference of this Court.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
APRIL 21, 2010. YVL
_______________ K.C.BHANU. J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2009
DATED 21.04.2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order allowing a person claiming title to come on record in a suit for injunction should be set aside under Article 227.
Whether the trial court was right in allowing the first respondent to be impleaded despite the suit being for injunction simplicitor.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagadish and others
Zakir Unissa Begum and another
K.C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
