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 3^rd defendant in the suit.

The petitioners claimed that during the pendency of the suit, the 1^st 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 3^rd defendant, as she illegally sold part of the land in collusion with her husband.  The 1^st 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
1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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
1^st 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