BHERI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. MAVURI VEERA VENKATA SATYARANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order passed by the learned District Judge, East Godavari District in I.A.No. 1754 of 2004 in O.S.No. 86 of 2003, dt.13-9-2004.

(2.) Petitioner is the third party. He filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to implead himself as 3rd defendant in the suit. Suit O.S.No.86 of 2003 was filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 herein against the respondents No.5 and 6 and sought for mining lease to exploit the plaint schedule property for the purpose of extracting granites slabs. As there was dispute between the plaintiff and the mines department, they filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2003 seeking declaration that the refusal of the defendants to grant licence in favour of the 4th plaintiff to excavate the land as illegal and sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant lease, licence or permit in favour of 4th plaintiff to exploit the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule property for a period of five years. In the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment, it is stated that he is entitled for 1/5th share in the property and therefore, he was necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit proceedings. The application was heard by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner has interest in the property. But, however, the issue relating to the title, the petitioner is already prosecuting the matter in O.S.No. 61 of 1999 against the defendants and others. The learned District Judge found that he is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and accordingly dismissed the petition by an Order dated: 13-9-2004. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. C. Sindhu Kumari submits that the Order of the learned Judge is wholly illegal and contrary to law. She submits that he being the legal heir of late Ramaswamy, he is entitled for 1/5th share and when that property was sought to be exploited by the plaintiffs after obtaining the lease from the Mines and Geology Department, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no direct interest and therefore, the learned Judge has not properly appreciated this aspect and erroneously dismissed the petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. O. Manohar Reddy submits that the Order passed by the learned Judge is quite legal and valid and he submits that though the petitioner has interest in the property, yet, the matter does not relate to the title to the property, but only declaratory suit seeking mandatory injunction to the Government Officers to grant lease of the schedule land for the purpose of exploiting the granite slabs was filed and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be a proper or necessary party and his presence is not at all essential in the issue to be decided between the plaintiffs and the defendants.