CRP/4449/2010 of The Council for Social Department Vs A. Lokesh Kumar on 31 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

These two civil revision petitions arise out of two separate interlocutory applications in O.S.No.187 of 2010on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, in which the parties are the same. Therefore,they are being disposed of by this common order. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed O.S.No.187 of 2010 before the lower Court for declaration that the judgment anddecree in O.S.No.637 of 2008 passed by the same Court is null and void and for injunction restraining respondentNos.5 to 7 (defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.187 of 2010) from interfering with the possession of the suit scheduleproperty. They filed I.A.No.623 of 2010 for ad interim injunction. The petitioner who is a third party to the suit filed I.A.No.667 of 2010 to implead it as a party defendant in thesuit and I.A.No.623 of 2010 for interim injunction. These applications were opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Bytwo separate orders dated 15.07.2010, the Court below dismissed the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), observing that if the petitioner claims the suit schedule property and ifthere is apprehension that the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit may adversely effect their title, a separate suithas to be filed. In these two civil revision petitions the Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Order I Rule 10(2) CPCthe petitioner is a proper and necessary party as it is claiming the property as absolute owner and therefore therecannot be adjudication of all the issues that arise in the suit. Per contra, Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4(plaintiffs in the suit) submits that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.435 of 2010 on the file of the same Courtfor the relief declaring another judgment and decree in O.S.No.173 of 2000 as null and void. According to him,even if the suit schedule property in the said suit is the same, the petitioner has to work out its remedies in that suitand it cannot be impleaded in O.S.No.187 of 2010. The Counsel for both the sides contend that there might be inconsistent findings in O.S.No.187 of 2010 andO.S.No.435 of 2010 as the subject matter of the judgment and decree in the two earlier suits, being O.S.No.173 of2000 and O.S.No.637 of 2008, being the same. If that be so, instead of the petitioner seeking impleadment in thesuit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 they could have as well pursued their suit. Be that as it is, as there appears tobe interconnection between the suit filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 4, it would be better if both thematters are tried and disposed of together. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. These Civil Revision Petitions are disposedof directing the Court below to suo motu club O.S.No.435 of 2010 to be tried and disposed of along withO.S.No.187 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

31.12.2010vs

_______________(V.V.S.RAO, J)