Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead the Government as a party to the suit. The subject suit is one for perpetual injunction = The trial court having observed that the suit on hand being one for perpetual injunction against a private party, the Government cannot be treated as either a proper or a necessary party, dismissed the petition - If it is the claim of petitioner/plaintiff that the Tahsildar C.K.Dinne has passed an erroneous order in respect of alleged rastha in M.C.No.65 of 2016 dated 11-11-2016, the remedy for the petitioner/plaintiff is in a different suitable proceedings but not in the present suit.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2995 of 2017
ORDER:
 This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 14-6-2017 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Kadapa in I.A.No.875 of 2017 in I.A.No.1840 of 2016 in O.S.No.756
of 2016, whereunder the trial court dismissed the petition filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead
the Government as a party to the suit.
 The subject suit is one for perpetual injunction filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff wherein he sought for inclusion of Government
as a party on the contention that the petitioner/plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and there is no rasta
in the suit schedule property and the Tahsildar D.K.Dinne without
enquiry and in collusion with the respondents passed the order dated
11-11-2016 in M.C.No.65 of 2016. The trial court having observed
that the suit on hand being one for perpetual injunction against a
private party, the Government cannot be treated as either a proper or
a necessary party, dismissed the petition. In that factual scenario,
this court find no perversity or illegality in order impugned.
 In a suit for perpetual injunction, plaintiff is expected to prove
his legal possession and enjoyment of the subject property as on the
date of the suit. In the instant case, Government cannot fit into the
slot of either proper or necessary party as rightly observed by the
2
trial court. If it is the claim of petitioner/plaintiff that the Tahsildar
C.K.Dinne has passed an erroneous order in respect of alleged
rastha in M.C.No.65 of 2016 dated 11-11-2016, the remedy for the
petitioner/plaintiff is in a different suitable proceedings but not in
the present suit.
 Hence, at the admission stage, without finding necessity of
directing notice to the respondents, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
 _____________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
Dated 30-6-2017
Dvs
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO














CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2995 of 2017
Dated 30-6-2017 

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.