Allowed

K.Yogender Reddy, v. Smt. K.Usha Rani

Telangana HC4 Sept 2014CRP/4410/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application for impleading必要 parties in a property suit. The High Court held that impleadment is permissible at any stage under CPC Order I Rule 10 and quashed the lower court's order, directing a reopening of the case.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed; the impugned order dismissing the impleadment application was set aside; the lower court was directed to reopen the case.

K.Yogender Reddy, Vs Smt. K.Usha Rani — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*** The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy +** Civil Revision Petition No.4410 of 2013

¶2

% Dated 04.09.2014

¶3

# K.Yogender Reddy and another .. Petitioners Vs.

¶4

$ Smt.K.Usha Rani and 2 others.

.. Respondents

< Gist

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.R.Satyanarayana Reddy

¶9

^ Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.Vivek Chandrasekhar.S

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms.N.Niyatha

¶11

Cases referred :

¶12

-----

¶13

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.4410 of 2013

¶14

Dated 04.09.2014

¶15

Between:

¶16

K.Yogender Reddy and another

¶17

…Petitioners

¶18

And

¶19

Smt.K.Usha Rani and 2 others.

¶20

…Respondents

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.R.Satyanarayana Reddy

¶22

Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.Vivek Chandrasekhar.S

¶23

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms.N.Niyatha

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

Order:

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 31.07.2013, in IA.No.100 of 2013 in OS.No.308 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the lower Court’), whereby the application, filed by the petitioners for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as defendant

¶27

Nos.2 and 3 in the suit, was dismissed. The petitioners have filed the abovementioned suit (i) for declaration of their title in respect of plot No.112 admeasuring 1111 square yards in Survey No.13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampalli Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the suit schedule property’); (ii) for ejection of respondent No.1 from the suit schedule property; (iii) for putting the petitioners in possession of the suit schedule property; and (iv) for grant of perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.1 from interfering with their possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners also sought for a decree for damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit schedule property by respondent No.1.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that pending the suit, the lower Court has granted ad interim injunction restraining respondent No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed IA.No.100 of 2003 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) with the allegation that despite subsistence of the said order of injunction,

¶29

respondent No.1 has executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 represented by respondent No.3, conveying certain extent of land in Survey No.13, which includes the suit schedule property. The petitioners have, therefore, sought for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein she has pleaded that an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas in Survey No.13 of Khanamet Village was purchased by her under valid registered sale deed, dated 19-11-1997, from its previous owner; that the said property was sold to respondent Nos.2 and 3; that the said property is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and that therefore, the question of impleading respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suit would not arise.

¶30

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not appear to have either entered their appearance or filed their counter-affidavits. Regrettably, the lower Court has not even referred in its order as to whether notices were ordered on respondent Nos.2 and 3 and if so, whether they have entered their appearance or not. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that as per the established convention,

¶31

notices were sent to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and despite the same, they have not entered appearance and contested the application. The lower Court, in my opinion, has committed a serious lapse in not adverting to this aspect at all. Be that as it may, IA.No.100 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suit remained uncontested by the latter. By its order, dated 31-07-2013, the lower Court has dismissed the said application.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the lower Court has assigned the following reasons for dismissal of IA.No.100 of 2013:

¶33

(i) that the suit is part heard;

¶34

(ii) that respondent No.1 was thoroughly examined;

¶35

(iii) that as per the recent amendment, no Court can permit impleadment of a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC, after commencement of the trial;

¶36

(iv) that admittedly, the suit schedule property alleged to have been sold to the proposed parties and the person having direct interest in subject matter of the suit and who would be affected by the result of the suit should be allowed to come on record;

¶37

(v) that there is variation in the names given by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the IA and the copy of the sale deed in that in Para 3 of the affidavit, the name of the purchaser was shown as ‘Gutta Conventions Services Limited represented by its Director C.S.Neelkantha’ whereas in Paras 4 and 5, the name was mentioned as ‘Butta Conventions Services Limited represented by its Director B.S.Neelkantha’; (vi) that there is variation in the name of the Director in Paras 3, 4 and 5 and that the name of the Company is also shown as ‘Gutta Conventions’ in Para 3 whereas in Paras 3 and 4, the Company’s name is shown as ‘Butta conventions’.

¶38

I have carefully tried to decipher the true purport of the order of the lower Court, but, I must confess, I could not succeed, in my effort, in this regard. The manner, in which the lower Court has passed the impugned order, reflected that it is in a highly confused state of mind. As noted above, one of the reasons assigned by it is that, as per the recent amendment, “no third party can be impleaded after commencement of trial.”

¶39

A perusal of the Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC shows that it does not support this reasoning. The said provision envisages that 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 the Court to be 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, and 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.

¶40

The aforesaid provision does not anywhere bar impleadment of any party after the commencement of trial. On the contrary, sub-Rule (2) of Order X Rule 10 CPC empowers the Court to strike out or add any party at any stage of the proceedings, if it feels it just and that the presence of such party is necessary to enable itself to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Thus, the reasoning of the lower Court that addition of

¶41

party after commencement of trial is barred reflects a complete non-application of mind on its part.

¶42

With regard to the reason pertaining to the variation in the names, less this Court deals with it, it is better for the lower Court. No doubt, there are variations in the description of the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in different Paras of the affidavit filed in the support of the application filed for their impledment in the suit. The fact, however, remains that there is no dispute relating to their identity. In the prayer in the said application, the petitioner has correctly described the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the same match with the names mentioned in sale deed, dated 25-102012, executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. This being the admitted position, reliance on the purported variation in the description of the names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in different paragraphs of the affidavit filed in support of the implead application is wholly misplaced and the Court is not expected to rely upon such inconsequential mistakes. After all, the intendment of law is to render substantial justice and not to deny justice on inconsequential or

¶43

inadvertent mistakes.

¶44

The plea of the petitioners is that, in defiance of the order of injunction suffered by respondent No.1, she has sold the suit schedule property to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Having regard to the substantive reliefs claimed by the petitioners viz., declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction against respondent No.1, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who, allegedly, purchased the suit schedule property pending the suit and during the subsistence of the injunction order, are not necessary parties. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are proper and necessary parties to the suit, for, if they are not impleaded as the defendants, the petitioners may be forced to institute another substantive proceedings for invalidation of the sale deed executed by respondent No.1 and recovery of possession from respondent Nos.2 and 3. Such a course would only result in multiplicity of proceedings. The lower Court, by dismissing the present application on jejune grounds, has given room for multiplicity of proceedings.

¶45

Mr.S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel

¶46

for respondent No.1, submitted that the property sold by his client to respondent Nos.2 and 3, is different from the one in respect of which the suit is filed. He has invited my attention to the plaint schedule and also to the schedule in the sale deed and submitted that while the plaint schedule has referred to different plot numbers as boundaries, the suit schedule referred only to survey numbers. This submission of the learned Counsel is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. The lower Court has not made this reason as a ground to dismiss the application, though respondent No.1 has raised a vague plea in this regard in Paragraph 4 of her counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, a perusal of the plaint schedule vis-a-vis the schedule contained in the sale deed would show that while the former has described the boundaries in terms of plot numbers, the latter has described the boundaries in terms of survey numbers. It will be a matter for evidence to be adduced by the parties as to whether respondent No.1 has sold the suit schedule property to respondent Nos.2 and 3 or not. The fact, however, remains that the survey number remains common both in the plaint

¶47

schedule and also in the schedule shown in the sale deed.

¶48

For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the suit.

¶49

Accordingly, the Order under revision is set aside. IA.No.100 of 2013 in OS.No.308 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is allowed. The lower Court is directed to reopen the entire case, allow all the parties to amend their pleadings and adduce additional evidence, if necessary, and dispose of the suit thereafter.

¶50

As a sequel, CRPMP.Nos.3653 of 2014 in/& CRPMP.No.6020 of 2013 are disposed of.

¶51

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶52

Dt: 4^th September, 2014

¶53

Note: LR copies B/o LUR

K.Yogender Reddy, v. Smt. K.Usha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Yogender Reddy, v. Smt. K.Usha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Goti Venkateswar Rao, Vs Smt. G. Laxmi

P Krishna Vs P Prakash

Mr.D.S.Rao Vs Mrs.Rahbav Fathima

Gajjala Janardhan Reddy Vs Food Corporation of India Employees

Prakash Rao Dandgey Vs Satyanarayan Dandgey

K.Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Jamma Sri Ramulu