CRP/6178/2009 of Gangireddygari Ramesh Kumar Reddy Vs Yerragorla Gangulamma on 29 December 2009

ORDER :

This revision petition is directed against the order dated11.12.2009 in I.A.No.1050 of 2009 in O.S.No.597 of 2007 on the file ofthe Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The main suit isfiled by the 1[st] respondent herein for permanent injunction restrainingthe 2[nd] respondent herein from interfering with the possession of theplaintiff with the plaint schedule property. The defendant/2[nd]respondent herein filed a written statement contesting the suit. Aftersettling the issues, while the evidence of P.W.1 was in progress, therevision petitioner, who is the son of the sole defendant/2[nd] respondentherein, filed I.A.No.1050 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. toimplead him as defendant No.2. In the affidavit filed in support of theaffidavit, it is stated that the petitioner along with his brothers and thedefendant constitute a Hindu joint family and they have been inpossession and enjoyment of the joint Hindu properties. It is furtherstated that the defendant fell ill and being a cardiac patient, he was notin a position to manage the joint property affairs and therefore, thepetitioner had taken charge of the joint family property and had beenmanaging the same for the past more than an year. It is also statedthat the defendant was not in a position to participate in the suitproceedings since he had to be taken to Australia for medical check upand treatment for a period of six months. Thus it was prayed toimplead him as defendant No.2 so as to enable him to defend the suitclaim. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application andthe Court below after hearing both the parties, dismissed theapplication by order dated 11.12.2009. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and havingperused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiablereason to interfere with the order under revision.

Admittedly, the suit is for injunction simplicitor and no relief issought against the revision petitioner, who wanted to get himselfimpleaded as defendant No.2. There is no plea in the writtenstatement that the plaint schedule property is the joint family property,nor such a specific stand is taken in the present application filed underOrder I Rule 10 C.P.C. Even with regard to the plea that the soledefendant is unable to participate in the suit proceeding on account ofill health, the Court below found that no satisfactory material could beproduced by the petitioner to establish the said plea.

The law is well settled that the question of addition of parties is ajudicial discretion which has to be exercised in the facts andcircumstances of a particular case. Impleadment can be ordered onlywhere the Court is satisfied that the presence of the proposed party isnecessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicateupon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Particularly in asuit relating to property, the person sought to be impleaded must be ina position to show that he has a direct interest in the suit property.

In the instant case, on proper application of mind to the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Court below held that the defendantalone was proper and necessary party against whom an injunctionwas sought and that the proposed party was neither necessary nor aproper party. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannotbe held to be arbitrary or perverse and consequently, the order underrevision cannot be termed as erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Conclusion

______________

G. ROHINI, J.