This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the impleadment of a respondent as a necessary defendant in a suit for permanent injunction regarding land construction disputes, finding the lower court's order well-founded.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Interim relief petition disposed of as infructuous.
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.
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2649 of 2014
Dated 05.09.2014
Between:
M.Narasimha Reddy
…Petitioner
And
K.Satti Reddy and another
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Atchuta Ram Counsel for the respondent: Mr.C.Kumar for Mr.P.Shiv Kumar
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 17.02.2014, in IA.No.467 of 2013 in OS.No.569 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the lower Court has allowed the above-mentioned IA filed by
respondent No.1 and ordered his impleadment as defendant No.2 in the suit.
A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from interfering with the construction of building over his plot bearing No.26 situated at Ammangal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.1 has filed the above-mentioned IA seeking his impleadment as defendant No.2 in the suit by pleading that he is the owner and possessor of plot Nos.69 and 80 admeasuring 442 square yards in Survey Nos.54 and 55; that he has sold plot No.69 admeasuring 190 and retained No.80 square yards plot admeasuring 252 square yards; that on the western side of his plot, there exists a 25 feet wide road; and that on the opposite side of the said road, the petitioner/plaintiff, who owns plot No.26, is raising construction without obtaining permission from respondent No.2 and also by encroaching a part of the 25 feet wide road. With these averments, respondent No.1 has sought for his impleadment as defendant No.2 in the suit.
The lower Court, in a well reasoned order, has allowed the said application by observing that law mandates construction of structures by private persons after obtaining necessary sanctions from local Government and that the principle behind prescription of such mandate is to ensure not only the safety of structures but also avoidance of inconvenience to neighbours. These reasons being well founded, respondent No.1 is a necessary and proper party to the suit. Therefore, the lower Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in allowing the application for impleadment filed by respondent No.1.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3692 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 5th September, 2014 LUR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in allowing the impleadment of a co-owner as a necessary party in a suit for permanent injunction.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition should be dismissed.
M. Narasimha Reddy
K. Satti Reddy
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
