VADDE NARAYANA REDDY Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER NARPALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is as to whether the Court is empowered to implead any party in a suit, if satisfied that the party is a necessary and proper party, even though the application for impleading seeks the impleadment of a different party.

(2.) O.S. No. 42/92 was instituted on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anantapur by the petitioner against the Respondents 2 and 3. The plea was that the suit sched tile land was a government land and that the same was in illegal possession of the petitioner and that he was evicted by invoking the provisions contained under A.P. Land Encroachment Act and that the said land was assigned to respondents 2 and 3. Respondent No./l who is the Mandal Revenue Officer in this Revision Petition filed I.A.No. 1205/92 to implead him as one of the defendants, but instead, the Court of District Munsif impleaded the Collector. The plaintiff who was the 1st respondent in that impleadment petition has preferred this revision petition challenging the order of the District Munsif on the ground that when the impleadment petition was filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer for impleading him as a party-defendant, the lower Court was not empowered to implead the Collector as a party-defendant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court was not having jurisdiction to implead the Collector when the plea of the Mandal Revenue Officer was to implead him and at the most, even if the impleadment petition was to be allowed, only Mandal Revenue Officer could be impleaded and not the Collector. I cannot accede to this contention. No fetters can be placed on the powers of the Court to implead a party and ultimately it is the Court which has to consider as to who is the necessary and proper party, so that effectual adjudication is made so as to bind the parties. Even if an application is made to implead a particular person or officer as a party, the Court is not precluded from exercising its mind to find out as to whether such a person or officer is a necessary or proper party and if not, whether any other person or officer could be added as parties.