Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 952 (AP)

Ashwini Kumar Agarwal v. N. Sunitha

2012-10-04

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment Respondents 3 and 4 herein filed O.S.No.479 of 2009 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, against the petitioners and respondent No.5 for cancellation of a sale deed, dated 01.08.1961, executed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff, the 4th respondent herein, is said to have entered into a compromise with the petitioners. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was paid to her by the petitioners. A memorandum of compromise was filed, but the same is yet to be recorded. At that stage, respondents 1 and 2 claiming to be the children of the 4th respondent filed an application, being I.A.No.13 of 2011 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., to get themselves impleaded in the suit as defendants. It was stated that, they filed O.S.No.730 of 2010 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition of various items, including the suit schedule property, and that an order of temporary injunction was passed restraining the 4th respondent herein from alienating any property. They further stated that the withdrawal of O.S.No.479 of 2009, at this juncture, would be detrimental to their interests, and in that view of the matter, they be impleaded as defendants 10 and 11, in the suit. The petitioners opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 20.01.2012 Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The suit filed by respondents 3 and 4 is for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed that was executed in favour of the petitioners, long back. Though respondents 3 and 4 were not parties to the transaction, they claimed interest in the property. It appears that the 2nd plaintiff in the suit i.e. the 4th respondent entered into a compromise with the petitioners herein. Respondents 1 and 2 are claiming their right to the suit schedule property through their mother, the 4th respondent. Left to themselves, they did not institute any proceedings against the petitioners. Further, they are not opposing, the relief claimed in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 are claiming their right to the suit schedule property through their mother, the 4th respondent. Left to themselves, they did not institute any proceedings against the petitioners. Further, they are not opposing, the relief claimed in the suit. It is only a person, who opposes the suit, even if not being a party to it that can file an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to implead itself, as a defendant. If a third party claims that it supports the relief claimed in the suit, at the most, he can get impleaded as a plaintiff, subject to the consent of the plaintiffs. In such an event, the Court would have an occasion to examine whether the persons so intending to get themselves impleaded as plaintiffs have any independent right, if the original plaintiffs intend to withdraw the suit. Under no circumstances, such persons can be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Therefore, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is, however, left open to respondents 1 and 2 to take steps to get themselves impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.