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

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

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS