Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 16 (AP)

A. Peter Son Israel v. V. Jayaprada

2003-01-06

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2003
( 1 ) THE revision petitioner, who is a third party to O. S. No. 14 of 1983, filed I. A. No. 343 of 2002 under Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC to implead him as one of the defendants in the suit and the same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judgeby the order under revision. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner is claiming 1/9th share in the suit property as one of the heirs of his grand-mother, who is the original owner of the suit property, revision petitioner, in order to protect his interest, is a proper if not a necessary party to the suit and the trial court on an untenable ground that revision petitioner failed to disclose, in his affidavit filed in support of the application, about the existence of the structures in the suit property, dismissed the petition. It is his contention that existence or non existence of a building in the suit property is wholly irrelevant to decide if the revision petitioner is a necessary or property party to the suit and so the order under revision may be set aside and revision petitioner may be ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit more so because respondents would not be put to any inconvenience if the revision petitioner is allowed to come on record as a defendant. ( 3 ) THE suit initially was filed by Abdul omar, who was later transposed as 25th defendant, seeking declaration of his title to the suit property which is a site with a structure containing none portions as shown in the plan filed along with the plaint, and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property. Subsequently, 21st defendant was transposed as 2nd plaintiff and 17th defendant was transposed as 3rd plaintiff. The order under revision shows that compromise entered into between plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 2,3,5 to 8, 22,24,27 and 28 was recorded and the dispute now is only between plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendant No. 25 i. e. , the original plaintiff, and that evidence on both sides was closed and the suit is being posted for arguments and at the stage revision petitioner filed this petition to implead him as a party to the suit. ( 4 ) IT is well known that the plaintiff is the dominus Litus and cannot be compelled to fight litigation against a person with whom he does not wish to proceed against, because he is the person that would be taking the risk, since non impleading of a necessary party to the suit entitles dismissal of the suit. It is no doubt true that the court has ample power to order a person being made a party to the suit in spite of objection or protest by the plaintiff, if it is of the opinion that such person is a necessary or proper party to decide the dispute between the parties. ( 5 ) AS rightly observed by the trial court the suit is pending in the court from 1983 i. e. , about 19 years and at long last it reached the stage of arguments. If at this stage petitioner is allowed to be brought on record, he would have to be given an opportunity to file his written statement and he may also seek opportunity to recall the witnesses already examined and he would have to be given an opportunity to lead evidence on his behalf, which would cause further delay in disposal of the suit. In fact no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner, if he is not made a party to the suit. If the court finds that he is a necessary party, since he was not allowed to come on record, the suit would be dismissed for non impleading of a necessary party. If he is not a necessary or proper party to the suit the decision or findings in the suit does not bind him, and the findings also would not operate as resjudicata against him. If the rights of the revision petitioner are being interfered with by third parties including the parties to the suit, his remedy is to file a suit and obtain necessary relief. The fact that revision petitioner came up with this petition to implead him as a party to the suit only in 2002, when the suit is pending from 1983 onwards, shows that his rights if any, in the suit property, are not interfered with from 1983 onwards. The fact that revision petitioner came up with this petition to implead him as a party to the suit only in 2002, when the suit is pending from 1983 onwards, shows that his rights if any, in the suit property, are not interfered with from 1983 onwards. There is no whisper in the affidavit of the revision petitioner filed in support of the petition that his rights are being interfered with by the parties to the suit now or at any point earlier. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances I am of the opinion that this petition is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings for some more time, and that there are no bona fides in this petition. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the decision of the trial court dismissing the petition. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.