Or.1, rule 10 C.P.C - REVISION allowed - suit for Declaration of Title basing on Sale Deed - the petitioners relatives of one of the defendant No.26 claimed a right in the suit schedule property as it is their Mathruka Property - Except Defendant No.25 , all other defendants not opposed - Trial court dismissed the I.A. - Their Lordships held that the Court is empowered to strike out or add parties and such power has to be exercised in a judicious manner - Curiously, respondent Nos.1 to 24/plaintiffs have not opposed the application of the petitioners, except respondent No.25-Respondent No.25 has not explained as to how his interest will be affected by the presence of the petitioners-The petitioners claim interest over the property and it is their pleaded case that if declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, their interests will suffer. -Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the petitioners, their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, in that, the necessity for them to file a separate suit can be obviated if the present suit is decided in their presence. - Revision allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P MSKLAWREPORTS



Though notices have not been served on some of the
respondents, considering the fact that none of the unserved
respondents have opposed the application of the petitioners for
their impleadment in the suit before the lower Court, non-service of
notices on them will not affect their interests.

The
petitioners, who are related to respondent No.26, filed I.A.No.513 of
2011 for their impleadment on the ground that the property sold by
respondent No.26 to respondent No.25 is the mathruka property
and that they have also shares in the said property.  
Respondent No.25 alone has contested the said application. 
By the order under
revision, the lower Court has dismissed I.A.No.513 of 2011. 

Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is empowered to
strike out or add parties and such power has to be exercised in a
judicious manner.
The petitioners claim interest over the property
and it is their pleaded case that if declaration of title in respect of
the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, their
interests will suffer.
 Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the
petitioners, their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, in that, the necessity for them to file a separate suit
can be obviated if the present suit is decided in their presence.

Curiously, respondent Nos.1 to 24/plaintiffs have not opposed the
application of the petitioners, while respondent No.25 who alone is
the contesting defendant has opposed the said application.
Respondent No.25 has not explained as to how his interest will be
affected by the presence of the petitioners.

The lower Court has
failed to consider the application of the petitioners from proper
perspective and adopted a lopsided reasoning in dismissing the
application of the petitioners.
      For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower
Court is set aside and I.A.No.513 of 2011 is allowed.  The civil revision
petition is accordingly allowed.2015 Telangana & A.P MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more