CRP/2056/2015 of T Laxmi Narayana Vs K Gokari Jagadish , G Jagadishwar on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counselfor the respondents.

2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.587 of 2006 onthe file of VII Additional District Judge-cum-Special SessionsJudge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The petitioners have filed suit for specific performance ofAgreement of Sale executed by the respondents No.2 to 7. Thefirst respondent herein filed I.A.No.129 of 2015 seekingimpleadment as defendant No.7 on the ground that he was a tenantand possessor of the suit land as his grand father and his fatherwere protected tenants. He also stated that Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Chevella division refused to issue an Occupancy RightsCertificate and the refusal was confirmed by the Joint Collector byhis order dated 31.03.2001. The writ petition filed by him inW.P.No.2712 of 2015 was also dismissed. Now the W.A.No.325of 2009 is pending, hence he stated that he is a necessary party tothe suit.

4. A counter was filed by the plaintiffs stating that thehusband of seventh defendant was the original protected tenant ofthe suit land as on the date of vesting i.e., on 01.11.1973. Afterhis death, Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued on 06.08.1994after conducting thorough enquiry. The petitioner-proposeddefendant No.7 preferred appeal before the Joint collector andfailed. The agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 is between the plaintiffs and the defendants. If the petitioner has got any claim inrespect of suit schedule property, he has to approach proper courtof law in a suit of specific performance of agreement of sale andthird parties have no role to get implead.

4. The trial Court in spite of above averments made in theaffidavit and counter-affidavit, allowed the application by orderdated 06.04.2015 observing as follows:

“..Both parties admitted that the dispute betweenproposed parties and Respondent No.7 is going on and it iswent up to the High court and writ appeal is pending. Thepetitioner is agitating his rights before the Revenue Courtcontending that he is protected tenant. Admittedly writ appealbefore Hon’ble High Court is pending in which the RespondentNo.7 is a party to the writ appeal. The result of the suit isbinding on the parties subjective disposal of the writ appeal. Hence, the proposed petitioner is necessary party to theproceedings.

In view of the above discussions the documents filedby the proposed party clearly shows that he is agitating for hisrights before Revenue Court and the matter is pending beforethe Hon’ble High Court by way of writ appeal. Therefore, thepetitioner is necessary party to prove his case…”

5. As seen from the above averments, there is no order infavour of the proposed party as on today. Only W.A.No.325 of2009 is pending before this Court and Occupancy RightsCertificate was also issued in favour of the first defendant and itwas also confirmed by the Joint Collector.

6. In the absence of any semblance of right as on today,the proposed party cannot be impeaded in a suit for specificperformance at this stage. However, it is open to the proposedparty to take appropriate protective measures in the pendingW.A.No.325 of 2009, if so advised. The order of the trial Court dated 06.04.2015 is erroneous and is accordingly set aside.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneouspetitions, if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________________

A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

Date: 31.12.2015

gvl