Or.1, rual 10 cpc No impleading of party at the time of arguments in bare injunction suit = The relief sought for in the suit being for a mere permanent injunction, the impleadment of the proposed party in the suit, without any allegation of her interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property, might not be called for. Even otherwise, an injunction cannot be granted without even an allegation of any attempted interference and if Pitchamma and any others attempted to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioners in any property owned and possessed by them, that may give them an independent cause of action to sue. In any view, the purchase of the properties by Pitchamma in 1984 being brought to the notice of the petitioners by the written statement dated 31.01.2005, the present application, as rightly opined by the trial Court, is highly belated when the suit is coming up for arguments after conclusion of evidence of both parties. The grounds for revision herein state about the knowledge about the sale by Pitchamma to third parties, through the evidence of DW.1, but do not claim the knowledge about the purchase by Pitchamma to be only from the evidence of DW.1. In the circumstances, the trial Court cannot be said to have exercised its jurisdiction wrongly and the order cannot be interfered with.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD


CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1000 OF 2013


Between:


Rayalla Laxmi @ Vijaya Laxmi and others            .. Petitioners

        
 And

Mandalapu Ramaiah and others                           .. Respondents



















The Court made the following:



                                                                                         



ORDER:


Heard Sri V. Durga Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs.  The revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission without ordering any notice to the respondent.

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1744 of 2012 in O.S.No.1574 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Warangal, dated 02.01.2013, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs to implead Mandalapu Pitchamma, as the 3rd defendant in the suit.

The petitioners claimed that during the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant, through his wife Pitchamma, sold the suit land to third parties under a registered sale deed, dated 25.09.2010, and as the third parties are trying to illegally interfere with the suit property, they desired to implead Pitchamma, as the 3rd defendant, as she illegally sold part of the land in collusion with her husband.  The 1st defendant in his counter affidavit contended that I.A.No.1182 of 2011 for impleadment of six more defendants was dismissed by the trial Court and the written statement itself pleaded about Pitchamma being the owner of the property, in spite of which no steps were taken all along during the pendency of the suit.  The suit is for an injunction simpliciter and, hence, the
1st defendant desired the petition to be dismissed.
The trial Court in the impugned order noted that the defendants pleaded in their written statement about Pitchamma, being the owner and possessor of the suit property, and the plaintiffs in spite of the knowledge about the registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1984, standing in the name of Pitchamma did not choose to implead her as a party. The trial Court also referred to I.A.No.1182 of 2011 filed to implead some third parties on the basis of Pitchamma executing a registered sale deed on 25.09.2010 in favour of those six persons.  A revision against the dismissal of the said application is stated to be pending.  Therefore, the trial Court felt that when the suit is coming up for arguments, after closure of evidence, any permission to bring third parties on record, will prejudice the rights of the defendants and, therefore, dismissed the petition.

In this revision, the petitioners contended that it was during the deposition of the 1st defendant as DW.1 that the information about the sale by Pitchamma was furnished and it was DW.1 himself who sold the property as the General Power of Attorney holder of his wife.  The trial Court without going into the merits and without considering the nature of the suit, erroneously dismissed the application and, hence, the petitioners desired the impugned order to be revised.

The plaint, as originally filed, made an allegation of interference with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendants 1 and 2 only and the relief of permanent injunction was sought for against them and their agents.  Even in the written statement filed on 31.01.2005, the 1st defendant clearly stated about Pitchamma, who is his wife, purchasing an extent of 2000 sq. yards under a registered sale deed, dated 21.06.1984, and subsequently purchasing another 650 sq. yards under another registered sale deed, dated 15.07.1984, Pitchamma was claimed to be enjoying the property as owner and possessor since then.  Therefore, since the filing of the written statement by the
1st defendant in the suit, the petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the claim made about Pitchamma being owner and possessor of the property in question.  That apart, even in the implead petition what was alleged was interference with the possession of the property by the third parties and not by Pitchamma herself and those third parties were attempted to be impleaded in the suit through I.A.No.1182 of 2011, which was dismissed by the trial Court and it is stated to be the subject of the revision pending before this Court.  The reply affidavit filed in this application also referred to C.R.P.No.4732 of 2012 to be pending in this Court in that regard.  The relief sought for in the suit being for a mere permanent injunction, the impleadment of the proposed party in the suit, without any allegation of her interfering with petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property, might not be called for.  Even otherwise, an injunction cannot be granted without even an allegation of any attempted interference and if Pitchamma and any others attempted to interfere with the enjoyment of the petitioners in any property owned and possessed by them, that may give them an independent cause of action to sue.  In any view, the purchase of the properties by Pitchamma in 1984 being brought to the notice of the petitioners by the written statement dated 31.01.2005, the present application, as rightly opined by the trial Court, is highly belated when the suit is coming up for arguments after conclusion of evidence of both parties.  The grounds for revision herein state about the knowledge about the sale by Pitchamma to third parties, through the evidence of DW.1, but do not claim the knowledge about the purchase by Pitchamma to be only from the evidence of DW.1.  In the circumstances, the trial Court cannot be said to have exercised its jurisdiction wrongly and the order cannot be interfered with.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs.
         
_________________________
G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J
20.03.2013
KH

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.