CRP/327/2025 of ANDIBOINA APPARAO Vs ANDIBOINA LAKSHMI on 7 May 2026

1. ANDIBOINA APPA STEEL PLANT EMP NAGAR GAJUWAK

1. ANDIBOINA LAKSH WIFE,

R/0 PEDAGANTYADA,V

2. ANDIBOINA APPAR 30-2, SIDDESWA VISAKHAPATNAM

3. ANDIBOYINA KANA AGED 29 YEARS PALEM, PEDAGAN

4. M SAYANARAYAN YEARS, RMP SIDEDESWARAM, MANDAL, VISAKHA Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to Memorandum E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL REVISION PETITION NO: 327/2025 ARAO, S/O APPANNA (LATE) AGE PLOYEE, R/0 24-38-23,VUDA COLO KA, PEDAGANTYADA,VISAKPATNAM AND HMI, W/0 RAJU(LATE) AGED 51 YE 21-30-2,SIDDESWARAM,MUSILINA VISAKHAPATNAM RAO, S/O RAJU(LATE) AGED 33 Y ARAM, MUSILINAIDU PALEM PED AKAMAHALAKSMI, W/O DOMMETI S R/0 21-30-2, SIDDESWARAM NTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM. NA, SON OF LAE NAGABHUSHANA DOCTOR, RESIDING AT

MUSILINAIDU PALEM

PED APATNAM. ...RES le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High m of Civil Revision Petition having bee DESH

LAPATI ED 57 YEARS ONY, VINAYAK M ...PETITIONER EARS, HOUSE AIDU PALEM YEARS, R/0 21- DAGANTYADA, SOMI NAIDU, ,MUSILINAIDU AM, AGED 68 D.NO.21-30-2, DAGANTYADA SPONDENT(S): aying that in the Court may be en aggrieved by the Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.168 of 2023 in R.C.C.No. 2 OF 2022, on the file of The Court Of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gajuwaka Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. LAKSHMI SARIPILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. The Court made the following order:

Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.168 of 2023 in R.C.C No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Court Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that:

The Revision Petitioner herein is the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are proposed respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.4 is respondent in Rent Control Case No.2 of 2022. The petitioner filed RCC No.2 of 2022 for eviction and payment of rental amount for the year 2020-21 i.e., Rs.12,000/-. In the said RCC, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.168 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying the trial Court to implead them as respondent Nos.2 to 4 in RCC as necessary parties. The said petition was opposed by the petitioner/revision petitioner by filing counter. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Heard M/s Lakshmi Saripalli, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter filed before the trial Court in interlocutory application and the grounds of revision, contended that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are neither proper nor necessary parties to the Rent Control Case. The petitioner, being dominus litis is entitled to oppose the implead petition filed by the proposed parties. She further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the scope and purport of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in its proper perspective. The trial Court erroneously observed that no effective decree could be passed in the absence of the proposed parties, particularly when they are not parties to the lease agreement. She further submitted that if the impugned order is allowed to subsist and the proposed parties are permitted to participate in the petitioner’s Rent Control Case, the rights of the petitioner would be affected, hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are proposed parties, filed I.A. No. 168 of 2023, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, seeking to add them as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in RCC No. 2 of 2022 on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of the dispute involved in the Rent Control Case. The trial Court, upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by both the parties, allowed the said application.

7. It is well settled that the power under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the proceedings, if the presence of a party is found necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. The object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all disputes relating to the subject matter are effectively adjudicated in one proceeding.

8. In the present case, the trial Court, after assigning cogent reasons, came to the conclusion that the presence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute, as the petitioners/proposed parties contended that the respondent/petitioner is their tenant and is carrying on Medical practice in the schedule property, which originally belonged to the father of proposed petitioner No.2 and proposed petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the mother and sister respectively of proposed petitioner No.2 and that they claimed that the petition schedule property devolved upon them after the death of the original owner and according to them if they are not impleaded as parties to the main RCC, serious prejudice would be caused to their rights and interests in the subject property.

9. The question regarding their rights or interest in the subject property can be effectively determined only after full-fledged enquiry in the main RCC. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court and warrants no interference. The contention of the petitioner that the impleadment of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would prejudice her rights is without any substantial basis, since the petitioner would still have every opportunity to contest their claim before the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in I.A. No. 168 of 2023 in RCC No. 2 of 2022

on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 08.05.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.327 of 2025 Dated 08.05.2026

MP