D SREENIVASULU REDDY Vs. VAKILBHASKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a suit being O.S.No.61 of 2002 for mandatory injunction on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, Nellore District. The respondents 5 to 10 were arrayed as defendants. They sought for a direction to the defendants to provide pipe culverts across the roadtodrawwaterfrom Kuchiwada irrigation tank. The petitioners herein, who allegedly owned lands on the northern side of the road, filed application being I.A.No.403 of 2004 under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to get impleaded in the suit as necessary and proper parties. The application was dismissed on 20-1-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two grounds. First, she would urge that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as no proper reasons are recorded by the trial Judge. Secondly, she would urge that when Order I Rule 10(2) CPC enables the Court to implead necessary and proper parties at any stage of the suit, the trial Judge committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that it is belated. Per contra, learned Counsel forthe respondents submits that the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.26316 of 2000, which is pending, and if the petitioners succeed therein in preventing the officials of the irrigation department from constructing pipe culverts, their application before the lower Court is not necessary.

(3.) The case of the petitioners before the lower Court as disclosed in their affidavit in I. A.No.403 of 2004 is this. They own lands on the northern side of the road and the respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) own lands on the southern side of the road who already have a drainage channel to let off floodwater into Swarnamukhi River. They also allege that the ryots of Kuchiwada approached the authorities not to provide any pipe culverts across the road, as the lands will get submerged. Considering this, the authorities came to a decision against providing pipe culverts across the road. They allege that if the suit is decreed they would be directly affected and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiffs did not file any counter affidavit opposing the application. The trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application observing as under. Perused. Admittedly the petition was filed at a belated stage that too when the suit is at the fag end of trial for evidence of D-6. All these years the petitioners kept quiet without making any effort to come on record. As such the petition is smack and lack of bona fides as suce liable for dismissal. Hence the petition is dismissed.