Though notices have not been served on some of the
respondents, considering the fact that none of the unserved
respondents have opposed the application of the petitioners for
their impleadment in the suit before the lower Court, non-service of
notices on them will not affect their interests.
petitioners, who are related to respondent No.26, filed I.A.No.513 of
2011 for their impleadment on the ground that the property sold by
respondent No.26 to respondent No.25 is the mathruka property
and that they have also shares in the said property.
Respondent No.25 alone has contested the said application.
By the order under
revision, the lower Court has dismissed I.A.No.513 of 2011.
Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is empowered to
strike out or add parties and such power has to be exercised in a
The petitioners claim interest over the property
and it is their pleaded case that if declaration of title in respect of
the suit schedule property is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, their
interests will suffer.
Irrespective of the merits of the claim of the
petitioners, their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, in that, the necessity for them to file a separate suit
can be obviated if the present suit is decided in their presence.
Curiously, respondent Nos.1 to 24/plaintiffs have not opposed the
application of the petitioners, while respondent No.25 who alone is
the contesting defendant has opposed the said application.
Respondent No.25 has not explained as to how his interest will be
affected by the presence of the petitioners.
The lower Court has
failed to consider the application of the petitioners from proper
perspective and adopted a lopsided reasoning in dismissing the
application of the petitioners.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower
Court is set aside and I.A.No.513 of 2011 is allowed. The civil revision
petition is accordingly allowed.2015 Telangana & A.P MSKLAWREPORTS