SARASWATHI NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. ARJUNDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation in the form of the revision petition as against the impugned order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nizamabad in I.A.No. 531 of 1996 in O.S.No. 122 of 1994 dated 21-8-1996. The application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 8(3) CPC to come on record as the defendant in a representative capacity has been rejected by the learned Munsif. Before that, the petitioner herein made I.A.No. 1406 of 1995 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as a defendant and that was dismissed on 14-2-1996 and when it was challenged before this Court, this Court dismissed the revision petition with the following observations.

(2.) The petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli meant for the residents of the Saraswatinagar. The respondent No.1 claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit site filed the suit against Respondent No.2, Muncipality for permanent injunction restraining it from interfering with his possession and to restrain it from preventing him from constructing on the suit land. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is trying to raise construction encroaching upon the land ear-marked for roads thereby causing obstruction and inconvenience to the residents of the locality. The learned Munsif did not permit the petitioner herein to come on record as it is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. This Court also did not interfere with such an order under the circumstances stated above. The learned Munsif has examined the matter again and by interpreting Order I Rule 8 (3) CPC has come to the conclusion that such an application is not maintainable as no suit is instituted or defended by anybody in the representative capacity to either permit or not to permit anybody to come on record to be impleaded as a party under Order I Rule 8(3) CPC.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Kiran Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif has traversed beyond the implications of the observations of this Court and consequently has interpreted the law in such a manner as to totally deprive the petitioner of any remedy as against the respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit although the conditions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC have been fulfilled. Mr. Sanaka Venkateswarlu, the learned advocate for respondent No.1-plaintiff has contended that the learned District Munsif is right in interpreting the law as above since the Provision Order I Rule 8(1) CPC only means that the leave can be granted only in case where certain persons having common interest either want to sue or be sued if they are already impleaded as parties and not otherwise. It is also his contention that unless such a leave is obtained, no order to implead such parties under Order I Rule 8(3) can be passed. It is also his contention that not only this Court in the revision petition disposed of earlier pointed out that the petitioner could seek any other remedy including a suit but also the law does not prevent it from filing a separate suit by the petitioner and there was no reason for it to come to the Court again and again to come on record although the law did not contemplate it.