ORDER : Petitioners filed this application under Rule 16 (a) of the Writ Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules' for brevity) seeking permission to implead them as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in W.P. No.3420 of 2020 as well as in I.A. Nos.1 of 2020 and 2 of 2020. 2. Petitioners submit that Proposed Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (writ petitioner) represented by Chief Promoter, Polemoni Jangaiah, filed the above Writ Petition No.3420 of 2020 questioning the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not according permission for formation / registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2.1 In the said writ petition, respondent No.5/Society impleaded as party/ respondent as per the orders in I.A. No.2 of 2020, dated 06.01.2023 and respondent No.5 raised an objection that the petitioner is not a juristic person and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 2.2 The petitioners submit that to avoid the technical objection raised by the respondent No.5, they filed the above implead petition for seeking permission to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the above writ petition, as they are proper and necessary parties. 3. Respondent No.5 filed counter contending that the writ petition filed by a non-juristic person, is not maintainable under law and to cover up the lacunae, the petitioners filed the present implead petition and the same is not permissible under law, especially as per Rule 16 (a) of the Rules. He further submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the respondents for not registering the Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally under the provisions of Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, they have to file separate writ petition and as per Rule 4(A) of the Rules, the petitioners have to pay separate Court fee and in the absence of the same, the application filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected. 4. Ms. 4. Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner in the main writ petition as well as the petitioners in the implead petition are seeking the very same relief under one cause of action i.e. for formation / registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally Village as they are Fishermen Community and they have jointly submitted representations to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 as well as District Collector, Ranga Reddy District requesting them to grant permission for formation / registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society. When the respondents have not considered the request made by them, Polemoni Jangaiah filed the writ petition in the name of Proposed Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally. The petitioners filed the implead petition seeking permission to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the writ petition, as they are proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the writ petition. 4.1 She further submits that the objections raised by the respondent No.5 are purely technical objections and the same are curable defects. If the petitioners are impleaded as petitioners in the above writ petition, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.5. She also submits that the objection raised by respondent No.5 in the counter affidavit that the petitioners instead of filing fresh writ petition filed the above implead petition to come on record as petitioners in pending writ petition, is not tenable under law. 5. Per contra, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that the implead application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable under law, especially as per the provisions of Rule 16 (a) of Rules. He further contended that the writ petition filed by the Proposed Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally basing upon the cause of action arose in the year 2020. The petitioners in the implead petition are not entitled to come on record in pending writ petition, especially after lapse of more than three years. 6. Now the point for consideration is : "Whether the implead petition filed by the petitioners seeking permission to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the writ petition, is maintainable under law"? POINT 7. 6. Now the point for consideration is : "Whether the implead petition filed by the petitioners seeking permission to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the writ petition, is maintainable under law"? POINT 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and a perusal of the material available on record reveals that the Proposed Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally, represented by its Chief Promoter, Polemoni Jangaiah filed the Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not according permission for formation/registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally. The respondent No.5 has taken an objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is filed by a non-juristic person i.e. proposed Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapallu represented by its Chief Promoter but not by Polemoni Jangaiah. 8. It is necessary to extract the provisions of 16 (a) of Writ Rules, 1977 of this Court as well as Order 1 Rule 10 (1) & (2) of C.P.C. for better adjudication of the matter. "16 (a) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application and on such terms as may appear to be just, order that the name of any party in improperly joined be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the petition, be added". 8.1 The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (1) & (2) of C.P.C. are akin to Rule 16 (a) of Writ Rules, 1977, which reads as follows : "10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.-(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted throught a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added". 8.2 The above Rules clearly says that if any person whose presence is necessary to enable the Court for effective adjudication of the matter, need to be added as a party. 9. In the instant case, the petitioners in the implead application are seeking permission to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the writ petition. The record shows that the petitioners in the implead petition and Polemoni Jangaiah, who is the deponent in the writ petition, have jointly submitted representations to the respondents on 28.11.2011 and 21.01.2019 respectively, requesting them to grant necessary permission for formation/ registration of Fishermen Cooperative Society, Jalapally, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District stating that they belong to Fishermen Community and they are residents of Jalapally Village. The petitioner in the writ petition as well as the petitioners in the implead application are seeking the very same relief. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the above writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court on 17.02.2020 for not considering the request made by the petitioner for formation/registration of Fishermen Society, Jalapally, for which the cause of action arose in the year 2020, and the very same cause of action is still continuing and the petitioners in the implead application are also seeking the very same relief and there is no change in the cause of action. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that the petitioners instead of filing a fresh writ petition, filed the implead petition to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 in the writ petition, has no force. 11. The settled proposition of law is that to render substantial justice to the parties, the procedural and technical defects will not come in the way. 11. The settled proposition of law is that to render substantial justice to the parties, the procedural and technical defects will not come in the way. The nature of objections raised by the respondent No.5 are purely procedural and technical in nature and the same are curable defects. 12. The petitioners in the implead application are entitled to come on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 37 as they are proper and necessary parties and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.5. The other objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.5, that as per Rule 4(a) of the Rules, each petitioner has to pay separate Court fee and in the absence of the same, the implead application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have paid separate Court fee. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No.1 of 2023 is allowed accordingly, subject to condition of payment of separate Court fee for each petitioner within a period of one (1) week from today, if not already paid.