Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 173 (AP)

Ainala Kumar v. Pulakanti Narsi Reddy

2008-02-29

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2008
ORDER: Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with their possession over the plaint schedule property. 2. While the suit is pending, revision petitioners alleging that they entered into an agreement to purchase the plaint schedule property from respondents 1 to 3 with a power of attorney, filed a petition to implead themselves as parties to the suit, which was dismissed by the order under revision on the ground that the suit being one for injunction simplicitor question of impleading a party to the suit does not arise, observing that if the revision petitioners have any grievance against respondents 1 to 3, they can seek their remedy by filing a suit for declaration of their title and for other reliefs. Hence, this revision. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in view of the ratio in B.BASHEER KHAN V/s. SYED SHAREEF, 2006 (3) ALD 651, and KESARI GOUTHAM REDDY V/s. VELPULA JOHN VICTOR MACAULAY, 2007 (5) ALD 656 , the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition. 4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, though served. 5. In B.BASHEER KHAN's case (1 supra), strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, inspite of an order of status-quo being passed against them, the defendants in the suit effected transfer of the property covered by the suit in favour of third parties. So, the plaintiffs filed a petition to implead the transferees as parties to the suit, which was dismissed by the trial court. When the plaintiff preferred a revision to this Court the learned Judge observing that the order of status-quo binds the transferees also, held that the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition to implead the transferees also as parties to the suit. In my considered opinion, the ratio in that case has no application to the facts of this case because it is not the plaintiffs that filed the petition to bring the transferees on record, but it is the transferees that want to come on record as defendants in the suit, which is opposed by the plaintiffs. It is well known that plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be asked to prosecute the case against persons whom he is not willing to prosecute. It is well known that plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be asked to prosecute the case against persons whom he is not willing to prosecute. It is for him to choose who the defendants in the suit would be, and so, no third party can compel him to fight the litigation against him when he does not want to do so. No doubt in certain cases Court can inspite of opposition by the plaintiff can direct impleadment of a party. In this case, it is not necessary because as rightly held by the trial court, if the revision petitioners felt that their rights, if any, in the plaint schedule property due to respondents 1 to 3 filing the suit against their transferors are put to jeopardy, their remedy is to file a separate suit, but they cannot compel respondents 1 to 3 to fight litigation against them. 6. In KESARI GOUTHAM REDDY's (2 supra), it is no doubt true that a transferee pendente lite, can be brought on record in order to protect his interest. In this case it is not the case of the revision petitioners that they have a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in their favour. They claim that they have an agreement of sale with a power of attorney in respect of the suit land in their favour. It is well known that an agreement of sale does not transfer title in the property, and so, it cannot be said that the revision petitioners have acquired title to the plaint schedule property by virtue of the agreement of sale in their favour. 7. Question as to who is in actual possession of the suit land is a question of fact, which has to be decided after both sides adduce evidence, and so, in the circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the trial court did not commit any error in dismissing the petition. 8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, in the interest of justice, revision petitioners may be brought on record. Question of avoiding of multiplicity of litigation does not arise in this case, because respondents 1 to 3 are only seeking an injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with their possession over the suit land. Question of avoiding of multiplicity of litigation does not arise in this case, because respondents 1 to 3 are only seeking an injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 from interfering with their possession over the suit land. If respondents 1 to 3 fail to establish their possession over the suit land, the relief sought by them would not be granted. If the revision petitioners feel that they have a right to possession of the plaint schedule property and that respondents 1 to 3 cannot interfere with their alleged possession over the suit land, they have to file a separate suit for that purpose and obtain a remedy. But, in a suit filed by respondents 1 to 3 against respondents 4 to 6, petitioners cannot seek adjudication of their rights in the suit land. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.