Or. 1, rule 10 and Or.6 , rule 17 C.P.C.- impleading of third parties as plaintiffs and for amendment of various reliefs individually - Plaintiff is the society - third parties are purchasers of plots from society - Lower court allowed the petition - High court set aside the same as no joint relief petition is maintainable as per civil rules of practice and as per C.P.C. - however the high court gave an option if - individual petitions are filed it can be considered as per law = Devarapu Padma and others.... Petitioners The Guntur Teachers Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd., No.1-2618, rep. by its Present Secretary Chennupati Haribabu, and others.... Respondents =published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10431

Or. 1, rule 10 and Or.6 , rule 17 C.P.C.- impleading of third parties as plaintiffs and for amendment of various reliefs individually - Plaintiff is the society - third parties are purchasers of plots from society - Lower court allowed the petition - High court set aside the same as no joint relief petition is maintainable as per civil rules of practice and as per C.P.C. - however the high court gave an option if - individual petitions are  filed it can be considered as per law = 
Coming to Or. 1 , rule 10 of C.P.C. =
It is not uncommon that applications are filed to implead strangers, as parties
to the suit. However, filing of an application to implead an individual as the
plaintiff is almost a rarity.  
It would be possible only when an individual who
does not have any independent identity, but is sailing with the plaintiffs in
all respects and is not claiming any individual claims. In such an extent he can
be impleaded as plaintiff, that too at his request. 
In certain cases, in addition to the plaintiffs, who were already on record,
some of the defendants may be transposed as the plaintiffs or the third parties
also can be added as plaintiffs. Wherever such steps are taken, no independent
relief can be claimed on behalf of the persons who were newly added as the
plaintiffs. They must sail with the existing plaintiffs on record. In this case,
however, separate reliefs are sought to be claimed on behalf of each of the
persons sought to be added as the plaintiffs.

For all practical purposes, if
each plaintiff, who is sought to be added, will be claiming individual and
independent relief for him, the question of limitation, court fee and other
aspects would arise.
Coming to the relief claimed in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there was a
serious infirmity in the application.
  It is only the 1st plaintiff who could
have sought for amendment of the plaint.
The question of the relief, amendment
of the plaint being claimed by the persons who are yet to become a party to the
suit, does not arise. Further, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC places an
embargo on the amendment to the pleadings, once the trial of the suit commences.
Though it is not in the form of absolute prohibition, the party has to plead and
the Court has to record cogent reasons, as to what prevented the party from
taking the plea, which is sought to be introduced through amendment, before the
commencement of the trial. No effort was made by the trial Court in this
direction. Simply by making an observation that the prohibition contained in the
proviso is not absolute, amendments, which have serious and far-reaching in
nature, were permitted.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1212 of 2012  

Dated 11-10-2013

Devarapu Padma and others.... Petitioners

The Guntur Teachers Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd.,   No.1-2618,
rep. by its Present Secretary Chennupati Haribabu, and others.... Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:  Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3,5 to 7, 10 & 11: Sri N.Subba Rao
 Counsel for Respondent Nos.8, 9 and 13: Sri O.Manohar Reddy                  
     

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CITATIONS:


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY          
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1212 of 2012  

ORDER:

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.31 of 2008 in the Court of II-Additional
District Judge, Guntur against the petitioners herein for the relief of
declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial of the suit is said
to have been concluded.
The respondents filed I.A.No.707 of 2011 by invoking
Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to implead the
respondents 2 to 13 as plaintiffs 2 to 13 in the suit and to permit them to
amend the plaint in several respects including the prayer in the suit. 
The
petitioners opposed the I.A. by raising several objections.
According to them,
the 1st respondent filed interlocutory applications on earlier occasions to
implead the respondents 2 to 13 in different batches and even when they were
pending enquiry, on the objections raised by them, the 1st respondent has
withdrawn the same. 
They also raised objections as to the maintainability of the
application filed for impleading the respondents 2 to 13 as the plaintiffs and
for clubbing of various reliefs.  
Other objections were also raised.
The trial
Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 18.01.2012. Hence, this revision.

Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the
application filed by the respondents herein was totally misconceived and
untenable in law.
He contends that the relief claimed in the I.A. was under
different provisions, which are totally unconnected with each other, and still
the trial Court allowed the I.A.
Learned counsel further submits that in case
the respondents 2 to 13 wanted any relief in the form of declaration of title
and recovery of possession, they have to file separate suits and there was no
basis for them to claim separate and individual reliefs, in respect of different
plots.
He contends that several aspects, such as limitation, court fee and the
conditions stipulated in Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, arise and the lower court did
not address any of them.

Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits
that the necessity to file the application has arisen on account of the
objections raised by the petitioners that the 1st respondent is no longer owner
of the suit schedule property.
He contends that the 1st respondent, a Society,
has since executed the sale deeds in favour of its members i.e., respondents 2
to 13 and in that view of the matter, an application was filed to implead the
respondents 2 to 13 as the plaintiffs and for the necessary reliefs.

It has already been observed that in I.A.No.707 of 2011, the respondents have
invoked Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on the one hand and Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the  
other hand.

It is not uncommon that applications are filed to implead strangers, as parties
to the suit. However, filing of an application to implead an individual as the
plaintiff is almost a rarity.  
It would be possible only when an individual who
does not have any independent identity, but is sailing with the plaintiffs in
all respects and is not claiming any individual claims. In such an extent he can
be impleaded as plaintiff, that too at his request.
     
In certain cases, in addition to the plaintiffs, who were already on record,
some of the defendants may be transposed as the plaintiffs or the third parties
also can be added as plaintiffs. Wherever such steps are taken, no independent
relief can be claimed on behalf of the persons who were newly added as the
plaintiffs. They must sail with the existing plaintiffs on record. In this case,
however, separate reliefs are sought to be claimed on behalf of each of the
persons sought to be added as the plaintiffs.
For all practical purposes, if
each plaintiff, who is sought to be added, will be claiming individual and
independent relief for him, the question of limitation, court fee and other
aspects would arise.
     
Coming to the relief claimed in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there was a
serious infirmity in the application.
  It is only the 1st plaintiff who could
have sought for amendment of the plaint.
The question of the relief, amendment
of the plaint being claimed by the persons who are yet to become a party to the
suit, does not arise. Further, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC places an
embargo on the amendment to the pleadings, once the trial of the suit commences.
Though it is not in the form of absolute prohibition, the party has to plead and
the Court has to record cogent reasons, as to what prevented the party from
taking the plea, which is sought to be introduced through amendment, before the
commencement of the trial. No effort was made by the trial Court in this
direction. Simply by making an observation that the prohibition contained in the
proviso is not absolute, amendments, which have serious and far-reaching in
nature, were permitted.
     
The Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Civil Rules of Practice mandate that individual applications must be filed for claiming the relevant reliefs.
Sometimes it may be possible to club more reliefs than one in an application as long as they are supplemental to each other. By no stretch of imagination, the relief of impleading strangers, as parties to the suit, that too as the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the amendment of the plaint on the other, can be treated as interconnected with each other. The order under revision passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.


        Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision
is set aside. 
It is, however, observed that in case the respondents want to
pursue the remedies in the existing suit itself, it shall be open to them to do
so by filing applications in the correct provisions of law. 
It is needless to
mention that the trial Court shall consider such applications, duly taking into
account the principles that are applicable, in this behalf.

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall
stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J  
dated:11.10.2013

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.