Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The High Court held the application was misconceived as the proper course is to institute separate substantive proceedings.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; CRPMP 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.338 of 2014
Dated 07.08.2014
Between:
Bolligarla Ranga Rao
…Petitioner/proposed defendant
And
M.Nirmala
…Respondent/plaintiff
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.L.Surendra
Counsel for the respondent: Mr.N.V.Anantha Krishna
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 13.12.2013, in IA.No.806 of 2013 in OS.No.3144 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the lower Court’).
The respondent herein filed the above-
mentioned suit for permanent injunction against third parties to this revision petition including one M.Sesha Rao (defendant No.3) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), for his impleadment as defendant No.4 in the suit. It is his pleaded case that on 25.03.2009, defendant No.3 has executed a registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, in his favour, in respect of Plot No.37, southern part admeasuring 250 square yards in Survey No.30, part of Mansoorabad Village, for Rs.11,25,000/- and that therefore, any injunction granted against defendant No.3 in the suit will affect his interests. The lower Court, by the Order under revision, dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
The relief of injunction is personal between the parties to the proceedings. If the petitioner has acquired any right over the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, from defendant No.3, he is entitled to protect his rights. However, the proper
course for the petitioner in this regard is to assert his right by instituting a substantive proceeding before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction. As no relief is claimed against the petitioner, it is unnecessary for him to come on record and make himself bound by the relief that may be granted against the defendants in the suit. In this view of the matter, the implead application is wholly misconceived. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to protect his purported rights by instituting independent civil proceedings, if his purported possession is threatened by the respondent or any person claiming through her.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.436 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 7th August, 2014 LUR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party with an Agreement-cum-GPA from one defendant should be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for permanent injunction.
Whether it is proper to dismiss an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC when no relief is claimed against the applicant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bolligarla Ranga Rao
M.Nirmala
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
