Allowed

K. Madhava Rao v. Sri G.V. Rao

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021CRP/968/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Civil Revision Petitions. It set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to implead a resident flat owner. The Court held the resident was a necessary party due to the potential structural instability affecting the building, invoking Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions allowed; lower court order set aside; proposed party impleaded as defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 2.

K. Madhava Rao Vs Sri G.V. Rao — Partition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA}

I .tI

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA^REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NOS : 968 AND 969^{0F 2014}

¶11

cRP NO.96 a oF 2014:

¶12

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved^{by the Order dated} 2410312014 in lA No.120 of 2C14 in lA^{No.45/2014 in OS No.162/2014on the file of the} Court of the Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,^{at Hyderabad}

¶13

BETWEEN

¶14

K. Madhava Rao S,/o K. Satyanarayana, Aged about 65 years,^{Occ:Rtd. Employee.} R/o. Flat bearing No.^6-3-61'2/D /^6,

¶15

Sowbaghya Apartments,^{Anand Nagar,} HYderabad

¶16

...Petitioner

¶17

AND

¶18

Sri G.V. Rao, S/o Late^{G. Punnaiah,}

¶19

Aged about 84 years, Occ:^Business,

¶20

R/o. Flat bearing No. 6-3-612/D,

¶21

Sowbaghya Apartments,^{Anand Nagar,} Hyderabad.

¶22

Smt. Manoramma W/o Shiva^Shankar,

¶23

Aged about 57 years, Occ:^EmPloYee,

¶24

R/o. Flat bearing No.^6-3-612/D /^10,

¶25

Sowbaghya Apartments,^{Anand Nagar,} Hyderabad.

¶26

Gleater Hyderabad Municipal^Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Cum^{SpeclalOfficer,} Having office at Municipal^Complex,

¶27

Tank bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶28

.Respondents

¶29

CRPMP. NO: 1333 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶30

¶31

Petition under section^{151 of cPCprayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the Highcourt may be pleasedto staY of all further} pro.".Oing. in O.S. No.^{162 of 2014, on the file of the Hon'bleVl Junior Civil Judge'} bity Ciuit Court,^{at Hyderabad pending disposal of the revision}

RPS NO: 820F 4

Betw	'ecn:
	J.chandram,uli^{Raju.S o Vc,rlirrtuRuju} AgedabJut^{'4 years.IUo.FlirNo.D.5} Sowbhagya \partments,^AnarrdNagar Colony,I(hriratabad,^{Llyderzrl'rad-004}
1	G. Prabhu,S^/o.Late^MahaderLldu Agedabouti5 yeals, R/o.^{Flal No.D.9} Sowbhagya \partments,^{Anarrd Nagar} Colony, I(hriratabad,^{Ilyderat,ad-004}
3	J.T.VenkatiRarna^Rajtr, S/o.ChandrLmouliRaju,^{aged 43 years,} R/o.FlatN< .D.8,Sowbhagyir^Apartments, AnandNagrrColony,^{l(hairatabad,} I-Iyclerabad-)04
4	B.J.MohanRao, S/o. Agedabout59yeals, R/o.Flar^No.D.7 SowbhagyaApartments,^AnanclNagar Colony,I(htiratabad,^{l-lyderahad-004}
5	Thanl<arnCrpi, W/o.lateCopi Ageclabout67years.R/o.Flat^No.D,2 SowbhagyaApartrnents,^{Anarr'-l\rgar} Colony. Khriratabad, Hyderahrrd-004 ANt	...Petitioners/ I)roposeci Respondents
l.	l(.Madhav^LI{ao,S/o.Satyzrrrara}'.rrra Agedabour 65 years.R/o.^FlatNo.D.6 SowbhagytApartrnents,^{Anand Nagar} Colony,I(lairatabad,^{Ftyderahad-004}	.RespondentiPetitioner
2.	G.V.Rao,^,/o,late G.Put.rnaiah, agedabout84years,R/o.Flat No.6-3-61]/D,SbwlhagyaApartrnents, AnandNag arColony,I(hairatabad, Ilyderabad004

6s:

,./

J Smt. Manorarra, W/o. Shiva Shankar Aged about 57 years, R/o, Flat I'lo. D. l0 Sowbhagya Apartments. Anand Nagar

¶46

¶47

Colony, I(hai ratabad, Flyderabad-004

¶48

4 GHMC, rep. by its Countissioner-cumSpecial Officer, Lower^'lank Bund Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶49

Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to vacate the .irv oiJei J"t"o 2810312014 granted in CRp No.968 of 2014

¶50

For the Petitioner : SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate

¶51

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARY, Advocate

¶52

For the Respondent No.3 : SRt M.SHTVANAND KUMAR, Advocate

I I l I

F.--*E"-d-__

c P o. OF 201 L

Petition under Arricre 227 0f constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 24/0312014 in rA No 12112014 in os No.'162l2014 0n the fire of the court of the Vr Junior Civil Judge, Ci y Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶58

( BETWEE} :

¶59

dha^. a Rao S/o K. Satyan arayana, Aged abor t 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee, R/o. Flat t :aring No. 6-3-6.12/D/6 !-olbaghy^{r Apartments, AnandNagar,} Hyrleraba< . ...Petitioner ,,AND

¶60

Sri G.V. lao, S/o Late G. punnaiah, Aged abor t 84 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat t earing No. 6-3-612/D, Sowbaghyr Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabac .

¶61

Smt. Ma roramma W/o Shiva Shankar, Aged abou 57 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat b^.aring No.6-3-6t2f Df rc, Sowbagtyt Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad

¶62

3, Gleater I :yderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its lommissioner Cum Special Officer, Having offj :e at Municipa I Conrple.., Tank bund load, Hydeiabad.

¶63

For the^petitioner : SF I D.VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate For the Respondent N rs.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARy, Advocate For the Respondent N r.3 : NONE APPEARED

¶64

... Respondentq.,/

¶65

¶66

The Court made the foli wing. COMMON ORDER

¶67

¶68

THE HON'IlI-E SRl.ItrS-ttCE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶69

CRP \os.96ti and 969 of 201 ,l

¶70

COMMON ORDER:

¶71

l. The revision petitioner/proposed respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has filed these civil revision petitions, assailing the common order dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2Ol4 in IA No.45 of 2014 in OS No.l62 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in IA No.121 of 2014 in the said suit.

¶72

The revision petitioner/proposed party in the array of respondenVdefendant has filed an application under Order-I, Rule 10(2) read with Section l5l of the Civil procedure Code and read with Rule 28 ol'the Civil Rules ol Practice seeking to implead him as defendant No.2 in the rnain suit and respondent No.2 in IA No.45 of 2014 to enable rhe Coun ro adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit ettectually and completely and further to permit him to contest the above suit as defendant No.2 and consequently, to amend the IA No.45 of 2014.

¶73

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit for perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) restraining the defendant-GHMC from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the revision petitioner has filed IA No. I2l of 2014 under Order-I. Rule10 (2) read with Section l5 i of the Civil Procedure Code and read

=--+_.

Page^{2 of 5}

AVRJ CRP Nos.968^{&9(r9of 2014}

¶78

with Rule^{28 o' the Civit Rulesof Practice to implead him as} defendant^{No.2.Similarlyhe also irled IA No'120 of 2014 in IA} No.45^{ol 2014. emporaryinjunction petitionin OS No'162of 2014} for impleading^{him as respondent No'l-thatapplicationwas} disn.rissed^{byhe Court below' through common order dated} 24.03.2014.

¶79

The case^{of the revision petitioneris that due to demolition} process,^{his fla will damage and it cannot be compensated' It is an} admitted^{fact tl at the petitionff is one of the flat owners in the same} built up^{area o1 lWs'SowbaghyaApartments' Anandnagar' Hyderabd'} The responder^{t Nos'1 & 2' who are the plaintiffs'haveobtained} structure^{stabilLty certificatemarkedas Ex.R. r, which shows that it is} not advisable^{o remove the walls in the groundfloor in the present} state as^{it may afi-ect stability of structut'e ln lact' the petitioneris also} a resident^{of sameapartmentand Ex'R' 1 supponsthe caseof the} petltloner.

¶80

5.Wherels,theContenliolloithepetititlne'randresl.londentsl&2 is that^{the G lMC, third respondentis proceeding tbr demolitionof} the ground^{1 oor, whichmay affect the stabilityof the flats in the} apafiment.^{I he Coun below in the order impugnedhas stated that the} stability^{of s ructure will be decided at a later stage and it is a suit for} injunction^{s mplicitor against the thirdrespondentand whethersuch} structure^{ca t be demolishedor not will also be decided after full}

Page 3 of 5

AVRJ CRP Nos.968^{&969of 2014}

¶85

¶86

length of trial^{and for irnpleadmentof the petitioner' it is not required} to be decided^{and accordingly held that the petitioner is not a proper} and necessary Part)^{to thc suit'}

¶87

Order-I,^{Rulc-10 (2) of CPC deals u'ith the powersof the Court} to strike out or^{add parties.The Court may at any stage of the} proceedings, either^{upon or without the applicationof either party' on} such terms^{as may appearto the court to be just' orderthat the name} of any^{partyimpropertyjoined, whether as plaintiff or defendant' be} struck out,^{and that the name of any personwho ought to havebeen} joined, or whose presence^{before the Court may be necessaryin order} to enable the^{Court effectually and completely adjudicateupon the} questions involved^{may add or strike out the party'}

¶88

This is a sr'rit^{for perpetualiniunction filedby ptaintiffsI & 2} against the^{soledeferrclant/GlIN{C' rvho remained absent in spite of} granting ample opportunity.^{Wheleas, respondents/plaintiflfs I & 2} are suppofting^{the clainl of the proposedparly statingthat he is one of} the resident of^{SowbaghyaAparlments and his presence is essential} and that he^{is supporting the plaintiffscause' if any part of the} apartment is^{demolished,it wouldaffectthe stabiiityof the entire} building. A^{properparty is one whose presence beforethe Courtis} necessary^{to enablethe Court to effectuallyand completelyadjudicate} upon and settle^{all the questions invoived in the proceedings'}

¶89

¶90

Page 4 of 5

¶91

AVRJ Clit' Nos 968 & 969 of20l4

¶92

In the ir istant case, the revision petitioner is a resident of same apaltment and he is also atfected it'a por-tion ot'building is rernoved by GHMC. I- e is directly interested in the sub.ie.ct matter and the plaintiff beinl a dominis /irrs has no ob.jecrion fbr irnpleading the proposed part. in the array of def'endants. It is clearly submined by the leamed co rnsel for the plaintiffs that the proposed party/revision petitioner is a necessary parfy to adjudicate the issues effectually and completely, br ing one ofthe affected persons by the arbitrary act of the third respo rdent/GHMC.

¶93

The Ho r'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of necessary part es in Public Service Commission v. Mamto Bishtt held, that an affbc ed party has to be irnpleadecl lbr ell-ecrually and completely ad udicating the issue in dispute.^'l hr-rs, there cannot be any trace of loubt that an aftecred pany has to be impleaded to eflectually an< completely resolve the issues involved. In that view of the matter, in r uch circumstances, I find that the Coun below failed to appreciate the facts of the case considering the principles laid under Order-I, Rule- 0 (2) oiCPC.

¶94

In the rt sult, both the Civil Revision petitions are allowed and the common ,rrder dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2014 in IA No.45 of 2014 in OS No.162 of 2014 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Ci^yil Court, Hyderabad, and in IA No.l2l of 2014 in the

¶95

' (1010) ll SCC 20

¶96

.--=+---

¶97

Page 5 of s

¶98

AVRJ CRP Nos.968 & 969 of20t4

¶99

¶100

¶101

said suit, is hereby set aside. Consequently, these two applications in IA No. 120 of 2014 and IA No. l2l of 2014 are ailowed and the proposed party/revision petitioner herein sha, be brought on record in the array of de fbndanti respondent as defendant No.2 and respondent No.2. In the circurnstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications. if any pending in these revision petitions shall stand c losed.

¶102

Sd/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶103

¶104

SECTION OFFICER ^_,/ 1. The Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶105

?. 9nu^{CC to Srio.viiavixuma'r.,} ffi"#;?oiridi'"

¶106

9n"^{CC to Sriv.v.v[.Cnary,} nbvocate i6FLjc]-,

¶107

nespohaeniSiir,r)5iru-#no Kumar, Advocate (opUC) 3. ?,13 33 3Jr',:3"*'

¶108

6_. One Spare Copy KJ.

lN!

F._---E

HIGH COURT

DATED3111212021

rQ
A<br>

ORDER

CRP.Nos.968^{and 96( ol 2014}

¶117

ALLOWING THE^{Ct P.}

¶118

K. Madhava Rao v. Sri G.V. Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Madhava Rao v. Sri G.V. Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sasary Kanakaiah Vs Smt. Kashannagary Shanthoshamma

Mrs. M. Nitya Reddy, Vs The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal

Tadimarri Pillalamarri Neelima Vs Tadimarri Chandrakanth

Nagara Simhachalam Vs The Union of India and another

Sri Sesha Sadanandam Vs M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

Putta Sandeep kumar Vs Mrs Bommidi Swetha , putta Swetha