Telangana High Court
CRP/968/2014 of K. Madhava Rao Vs Sri G.V. Rao on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NOS : 968 AND 969 0F 2014 cRP NO.96 a oF 2014: Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF [DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
\
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA [REDDY]
CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NOS : 968 AND 969 [0F ][2014]
cRP NO.96 a oF 2014:
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved [by ][the ][Order dated]2410312014 in lA No.120 of 2C14 in lA [No.45/2014 in OS No.162/2014 ][on ][the ][file ][of the]Court of the Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, [at ][Hyderabad]
BETWEEN
K. Madhava Rao S,/o K. Satyanarayana,Aged about 65 years, [Occ: ][Rtd. Employee.]R/o. Flat bearing No. [6-3-61'2/ ][D ]/ [6,]Sowbaghya Apartments, [Anand ][Nagar,]HYderabad AND
1. Sri G.V. Rao, S/o Late [G. ][Punnaiah,]Aged about 84 years, Occ: [Business,]R/o. Flat bearing No. 6-3-612/D,Sowbaghya Apartments, [Anand ][Nagar,]Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Manoramma W/o Shiva [Shankar,]Aged about 57 years, Occ: [EmPloYee,]R/o. Flat bearing No. [6-3-612/ ][D ]/ [10,]Sowbaghya Apartments, [Anand ][Nagar,]Hyderabad.
3. Gleater Hyderabad Municipal [Corporation,]Rep. by its Commissioner Cum [Speclal ][Officer,]Having office at Municipal [Complex,]Tank bund Road, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
.Respondents
CRPMP. NO: 1333 OF [2014]
Petition under section [151 ][of ][cPC ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to ][staY ][of ][all ][further]pro.".Oing. in O.S. No. [162 ][of ][2014, on ][the ][file ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Vl ][Junior Civil ][Judge']bity Ciuit Court, [at ][Hyderabad pending disposal of ][the ][revision]
I
I
,./6s:l/JSmt. Manorarra, W/o. Shiva ShankarAged about 57 years, R/o, Flat I'lo. D. l0Sowbhagya Apartments. Anand NagaruColony, I(hai ratabad, Flyderabad-0044GHMC, rep. by its Countissioner-cum-Special Officer, Lower ['lank ]BundHyderabad. ... Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to vacate the .irv oiJei J"t"o2810312014 granted in CRp No.968 of 20142810312014 granted in CRp No.968 of 2014
For the Petitioner : SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARY, Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : SRt M.SHTVANAND KUMAR, Advocate IIlI
F.--*E"-d-__ _
cPo.OF 201 L
Petition under Arricre 227 0f constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated24/0312014 in rA No 12112014 in os No.'162l2014 0n the fire of the court of the VrJunior Civil Judge, Ci y Civil Court, at Hyderabad.(BETWEE} :dha[. ]a Rao S/o K. Satyan arayana,Aged abor t 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee,R/o. Flat t :aring No. 6-3-6.12/D/6!-olbaghy [r ][Apartments, Anand ][Nagar,]Hyrleraba< ....Petitioner ,,-AND1. Sri G.V. lao, S/o Late G. punnaiah,Aged abor t 84 years, Occ: Business,R/o. Flat t earing No. 6-3-612/D,Sowbaghyr Apartments, Anand Nagar,Hyderabac .2. Smt. Ma roramma W/o Shiva Shankar,Aged abou 57 years, Occ: Employee,R/o. Flat b [.aring ]No.6-3-6t2f Df rc,Sowbagtyt Apartments, Anand Nagar,Hyderabad3, Gleater I :yderabad Municipal Corporation,Rep. by its lommissioner Cum Special Officer,Having offj :e at Municipa I Conrple..,Tank bund load, Hydeiabad.... Respondentq.,/For the [petitioner ]: SF I D.VIJAYA KUMAR, AdvocateFor the Respondent N rs.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARy, AdvocateFor the Respondent N r.3 : NONE APPEAREDThe Court made the foli wing. COMMON ORDER
I
/,
THE HON'IlI-E SRl.ItrS-ttCE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDYCRP \os.96ti and 969 of 201 ,l
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
l. The revision petitioner/proposed respondent No.2/defendantNo.2 has filed these civil revision petitions, assailing the commonorder dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2Ol4 in IA No.45 of 2014 inOS No.l62 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in IA No.121 of 2014 in the said suit.
2. The revision petitioner/proposed party in the array ofrespondenVdefendant has filed an application under Order-I, Rule10(2) read with Section l5l of the Civil procedure Code and readwith Rule 28 ol'the Civil Rules ol Practice seeking to implead him asdefendant No.2 in the rnain suit and respondent No.2 in IA No.45 of2014 to enable rhe Coun ro adjudicate upon and settle all thequestions involved in the suit ettectually and completely and furtherto permit him to contest the above suit as defendant No.2 andconsequently, to amend the IA No.45 of 2014.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffshave filed the Original Suit for perpetual injunction against theGreater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) restraining thedefendant-GHMC from interfering with their peaceful possession andenjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, therevision petitioner has filed IA No. I2l of 2014 under Order-I. Rule-10 (2) read with Section l5 i of the Civil Procedure Code and read with Rule [28 ][o' ][the ][Civit ][Rules ][of ][Practice ][to ][implead ][him ][as]defendant [No.2. ][Similarly ][he also ][irled ][IA ][No'120 ][of ][2014 ][in ][IA]No.45 [ol ][2014. ][emporary ][injunction petition ][in ][OS ][No'162 ][of ][2014]for impleading [him ][as ][respondent ][No'l ][-that ][application ][was]disn.rissed [by ][he ][Court below' ][through ][common ][order ][dated]24.03.2014.
4. The case [of ][the ][revision petitioner ][is ][that ][due ][to ][demolition]process, [his ][fla ][will ][damage ][and ][it ][cannot be ][compensated' ][It ][is ][an]admitted [fact ][tl ][at ][the ][petitionff ][is ][one ][of ][the ][flat ][owners ][in ][the ][same]built up [area ][o1 ][lWs' ][Sowbaghya ][Apartments' Anandnagar' Hyderabd']The responder [t ][Nos'1 ][& ][2' ][who ][are ][the plaintiffs' ][have ][obtained]structure [stabil ][Lty ][certificate ][marked ][as ][Ex.R. ][r, ][which ][shows ][that ][it ][is]not advisable [o ][remove the ][walls in ][the ground ][floor in ][the ][present]state as [it ][may ][afi-ect ][stability of ][structut'e ][ln ][lact' ][the ][petitioner ][is ][also]a resident [of ][same ][apartment ][and ][Ex'R' ][1 ][suppons ][the ][case ][of ][the]petltloner.
5. Wherels,theContenliolloithepetititlne'randresl.londentsl&2is that [the ][G ][lMC, ][third ][respondent ][is ][proceeding ][tbr ][demolition ][of]the ground [1 ][oor, which ][may affect ][the stability ][of ][the ][flats ][in ][the]apafiment. [I ][he ][Coun ][below in ][the order impugned ][has stated ][that ][the]stability [of ][s ][ructure ][will ][be decided ][at a ][later ][stage ][and ][it ][is ][a ][suit ][for]injunction [s ][mplicitor ][against ][the ][third ][respondent ][and whether ][such]structure [ca ][t ][be ][demolished ][or ][not ][will ][also ][be ][decided ][after ][full]
length of trial [and ][for ][irnpleadment ][of ][the ][petitioner' ][it ][is ][not ][required]to be decided [and ][accordingly held that the ][petitioner ][is ][not ][a ][proper]and necessary Part) [to ][thc suit']
6. Order-I, [Rulc-10 (2) ][of ][CPC ][deals ][u'ith ][the powers ][of ][the ][Court]to strike out or [add ][parties. ][The ][Court may ][at ][any ][stage ][of ][the]proceedings, either [upon or ][without ][the ][application ][of ][either ][party' ][on]such terms [as ][may ][appear ][to ][the court ][to ][be ][just' ][order ][that the ][name]of any [party ][improperty ][joined, ][whether ][as ][plaintiff ][or ][defendant' ][be]struck out, [and ][that the ][name ][of ][any ][person ][who ][ought ][to ][have ][been]joined, or whose presence [before ][the Court ][may be ][necessary ][in ][order]to enable the [Court effectually and completely ][adjudicate ][upon ][the]questions involved [may ][add ][or strike out the ][party']
7. This is a sr'rit [for ][perpetual ][iniunction ][filed ][by ][ptaintiffs ][I ][& ][2]the [sole ][deferrclant/Gl ][IN{C' ][rvho remained absent ][in ][spite ][of]against granting ample opportunity. [Wheleas, respondents/plaintiflfs ][I ][& ][2]are suppofting [the ][clainl of ][the ][proposed ][parly ][stating ][that ][he ][is ][one ][of]the resident of [Sowbaghya ][Aparlments and ][his ][presence ][is ][essential]and that he [is ][supporting ][the plaintiffs ][cause' ][if ][any part ][of ][the]is [demolished, ][it ][would ][affect ][the ][stabiiity ][of ][the ][entire]apartment A [proper ][party ][is ][one ][whose presence ][before ][the Court ][is]building. necessary [to ][enable ][the ][Court to effectually ][and ][completely ][adjudicate]and settle [all ][the questions ][invoived in ][the ][proceedings']upon
8. In the ir istant case, the revision petitioner is a resident of sameapaltment and he is also atfected it'a por-tion ot'building is rernovedby GHMC. I- e is directly interested in the sub.ie.ct matter and theplaintiff beinl a dominis /irrs has no ob.jecrion fbr irnpleading theproposed part. in the array of def'endants. It is clearly submined bythe leamed co rnsel for the plaintiffs that the proposed party/revisionpetitioner is a necessary parfy to adjudicate the issues effectually andcompletely, br ing one ofthe affected persons by the arbitrary act ofthe third respo rdent/GHMC.
9. The Ho r'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the concept ofnecessary part es in Public Service Commission v. Mamto Bishtt held,that an affbc ed party has to be irnpleadecl lbr ell-ecrually andcompletely ad udicating the issue in dispute. ['l ]hr-rs, there cannot beany trace of loubt that an aftecred pany has to be impleaded toeflectually an< completely resolve the issues involved. In that view ofthe matter, in r uch circumstances, I find that the Coun below failed toappreciate the facts of the case considering the principles laid underOrder-I, Rule- 0 (2) oiCPC.
10. In the rt sult, both the Civil Revision petitions are allowed andthe common ,rrder dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2014 in IANo.45 of 2014 in OS No.162 of 2014 on the file of the VI Junior CivilJudge, City Ci [yil ]Court, Hyderabad, and in IA No.l2l of 2014 in the k Page 5 of s AVRJCRP Nos.968 & 969 of20t4
said suit, is hereby set aside. Consequently, these two applications inIA No. 120 of 2014 and IA No. l2l of 2014 are ailowed and theproposed party/revision petitioner herein sha, be brought on record inthe array of de fbndanti respondent as defendant No.2 and respondentNo.2. In the circurnstances of the case. there shall be no order as tocosts' Miscellaneous applications. if any pending in these revisionpetitions shall stand c losed.
t
I
HIGH COURTDATED3111212021
ORDERCRP.Nos.968 [and ][96( ol ][2014]
ALLOWING THE [Ct ][P.]
rQA\