SUJANA GRANITES Vs. MANDAVA RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 158/92 pending on the file of the Court.of the Addl. Subordinate Judge at Ongole. The C.R.P is directed against the order dated 1-8-1996 of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed in IA.Nb. 1298 of 1996 in O.S.No. 158 of 1992 allowing the application filed by Mandava Rambabu, the respondent herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead himself as defendant No. 15 in the suit.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition be summarised briefly as under: The petitioners filed the suit in O.S.Nq.158 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge;.Ongole fee demarcationthat the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of Acs.5-73 cents of land i.e., item No. 1 of plaint schedule and me plaintiff No. 3 is the absolute owner of item No. II of plaint schedule and for permanent injunction' restraining the defendants 10 to 12 (officials of the department of Mining) from granting mining licences to the defendants 1 to 9 in respect of the plaint scheduld land and for other consequential reliefs.The plaintiffs filed IA No. 2200 of 1992 along with the suit for temporary injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 5 therein (officials of the department of Mining) from granting mining licence and other allied licences to the defendants 1 and 2 regarding item No. I of the plaint schedule land. On 30-8-1994 the defendant No. 1 sold Acs. 3-78 cents of land comprised in item No.I of plaint schedule to the respondent herein: On 17-11-1994 LA. No. 2200 of 1992 was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. C.M.A.NO. 1781 of 1994 was filed by the defendant No. 1 before this Court against the orders made in I.A.No. 2200 of l,9-92. On 8-3'1995! the defendant No. 1 was set ex parte by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole in O.S. .No. 158 of 1992. On 14-3-1995 the defendant No. 1 filed I.A.No. 573 of 1995 to set aside the ex parte order. On 23-6-1995 the respondent herein filed C.M.P. NO. 8426 of 1995 in C.M.A.No. 1781 of 1994 to add him as respondent No. 7 in the appeal. On 29-6-1995 the respondent herein filed I. A.No. 1327 of 1995 under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying the trial Court to add him in the place of defendant No. 1 stating that he purchased Acs. 3-78 cents in item No. 1 of, plaint schedule from the defendant No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 30-8-1994. On '4-7-1995 LA.No. 573/95 was dismissed by the trial Court. On 8-8-1995 the defendant No; 1 filed C;R.P:No;2816 of 1995 in this Court aggrieved by the order dated 14-7-1995 passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A,No. 573 of 1995. On 30-1-1996 the respondent herein was impleaded as respondent No. 6 in C.M.A.No. 1781 of 1994 and as on that date the C.R.P. No, 2816 of 1995 filed by the defendant No. 1 was pending in this Court and therefore the petitioners-plaintiffs did not oppose impleading the respondent herein as respondent No. 6 in C.M.A. No. 1781 of 1994. On 28-2-1996 C.R.P. No. 2816 of 1995 was dismissed by the Court. On 11-4-1996 C.M.A.N0.1781 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court directing the trial Court to dispose of the main suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The defendant No. 1 filed S.L.P. (Civil) 9861 of 1996 in the Supreme Court against the orders passed in C.R.P. No. 2816 of 1995. The Supreme Court on 2-5-1996 dismissed the S.L.P. Thus the order of the learned trial Judge setting the first defendant exports became final. On 20-6-1996 the respondent herein filed I.A.No. 1221 of 1996 to amend the petition in LA.No. 1327 of 1995 so as to convert it as a petition under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. On 24-6-1996 I.A.No. 1327 of 1995 and I.A.No. 1221 of 1996 were not pressed and therefore the learned trial Judge dismissed the same as not pressed, On 24-6-1996 the respondent herein filed I.A.No. 1298 of 1996 under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code to add him as 15th defendant in O,S.No. 158 of 1992. On 1-8-1996 the learned trial Judge allowed LA.No. 1298 of 1996 impleading the respondent herein as 15th defendant in the suit Hence this revision by the plaintiffs-petitioners.

(3.) Sri S. Venkata Reddy, me learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondent herein is no other than the son of the brother of the first defendant and he was quite aware of the institution of the suit in O.S.No. 158 of 1992 by the plaintiffs; the first defendant wanted to defraud the plaintiffs and therefore he deliberately, during the pendency of the suit, alienated a part of the item No. I of the plaint schedule property in favour of the respondent herein; only when the order of the learned trial Judge placing the first defendant ex parte became final with the dismissal of the S .L.P, {Civil) 9861 of 1995 filed by the first defendant, the respondent herein came forward with application I.A.No. 1298 of 1996 to add him as a party defendant and there is absolutely no bonafide in the application; having regard to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the learned trial Judge ought not to have allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and the order of the learned trial Judge suffers from an error apparent on its face. Sri S. Venkata Reddy, the learned senior Counsel, would maintain that at the most the respondent herein be added as a parry defendant only under Order 22 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. Sri S. Venkata Reddy would also highlight the differences in terms of legal consequences flowing from an order made under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and an order made under Order 22 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. On the other hand Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the impugned order of the learned trial Judge is in order; the respondent having purchased the property in question for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 30-8-1994 acquired title and interest in the property and therefore it could not be said that the. respondent is neither a proper nor a necessary party.