Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1209 (AP)

P. Vimaladevi v. C. Subojini

2007-12-13

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2007
ORDER 1. The first respondent filed O.S.No.226 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the petitioners and the second respondent, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. An order of status quo is said to have been passed. At the instance of the first respondent, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to note the physical features. It is stated that the report is silent as to the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property, but gave an indication to the effect that an extent of 17 square yards of land out of the suit schedule property was encroached by the petitioners. Thereupon, the first respondent filed an application to amend the plaint to incorporate the plea of declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The petitioners filed their written statement pleading their own independent title to the suit schedule property, and denying the claim of the first respondent. In addition, they have made a counter-claim against the first respondent for perpetual injunction vis--vis the property. Some other proceedings, such as O.S.No.54 of 2006 ensued between the parties herein and some others. 3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.530 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead the third respondent herein as a defendant in the suit. They pleaded that the suit schedule property, along with some other extent was initially conveyed to them under an agreement of sale and thereafter, it was followed by individual sale deeds. It was pleaded that the presence of the third respondent, as a party in the suit, is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the application. Through its order, dated 03.04.2007, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition. 4. Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the third respondent in the suit as a party is essential for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. He submits that though the sale deeds came to be executed by different persons, it is the third respondent, who arranged for all of them and has in fact, drawn a sketch with his own hands, depicting the individual plots, that were conveyed to the petitioners and others. He submits that though the sale deeds came to be executed by different persons, it is the third respondent, who arranged for all of them and has in fact, drawn a sketch with his own hands, depicting the individual plots, that were conveyed to the petitioners and others. The proposed party is said to be the father of the first respondent, original plaintiff. The learned counsel makes a reference to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4262 of 2005. 5. Sri C.Damodhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is for the plaintiffs to implead the parties in the suit and the petitioners who are the defendants cannot induct other persons as parties. He submits that when the petitioners are claiming title individually in themselves on the basis of the sale deeds executed by some other person, there is no basis for filing an application to implead the third respondent. He further submits that even the counter-claim of the petitioners can be only against the parties to the suit and not strangers. 6. Generally, it is for the plaintiff in a suit to choose the persons, against whom he intends to claim the relief. The necessity, to implead other persons in the suit, be it at the instance of the plaintiff or defendant, would arise, if only the existing parties claim any relief against any third parties, or the latter by themselves intend to oppose the claim in the suit. Neither is the case here. Further, the petitioners did not claim any relief in their counter-claim vis--vis the proposed respondent. Similarly, the first respondent did not make out any grievance against the third respondent. 7. From the pleadings of the parties and submissions made across the Bar, it emerges that the purpose underlying the present application is to elicit, through the proposed respondent, information about the transactions that led to the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. For that purpose, it is not necessary that the third respondent must be added as a defendant. It would be sufficient, if he is summoned as a witness. 8. There is another angle from which the matter needs to be examined. For that purpose, it is not necessary that the third respondent must be added as a defendant. It would be sufficient, if he is summoned as a witness. 8. There is another angle from which the matter needs to be examined. Whenever a person is impleaded as a party to the suit, circumstances must be such that, the party so impleaded must be in a position to file a written statement. Such necessity would arise, if only any relief is claimed against him. When the petitioners do not claim any relief against the proposed respondent, the whole exercise tends to become otiose, if not purposeless. 9. It is no doubt true that in the earlier effort made by the petitioners to implead the third respondent in this very suit, this Court upheld the order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.3124 of 2004, but left it open to them to file a fresh application by pleading necessary facts. There does not appear to be any substantial change in this regard. At any rate, interests of the petitioners can be protected by leaving it open to them, to summon the third respondent herein as a witness, and elicit necessary information through him. 10. It is needless to mention that the addition of persons as parties to a suit without any definite purpose is prone to complicate the scope of litigation. In case the petitioners have any independent cause of action against the proposed respondent, it is always open to them to file a suit and claim relief. 11. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to take steps to summon the third respondent as a witness as and when the necessity arises.