MULA KALAVATHI Vs. SUDDALA NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 1418 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil judge, Warangal, against respondents 2 and 3, challenging an order, cancelling the permission accorded to him, to construct building over the suit schedule property. The petitioners are owners of the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed I. A. No. 2121 of 2002, under order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. , with a prayer to implead them as defendants 3, 4 and 5. It was urged that the 1st respondent sought to make construction on their land, and it is at their instance, that the respondents 2 and 3 have cancelled the permissions, that were earlier accorded to respondent No. 1. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through its order dated 06-11-2002, the trial Court dismissed the I. A. Hence, this C. R. P.

(2.) SRI A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is his clients, that are immediately affected on account of the adjudication in the suit, and the trial Court did not appreciate the matter from proper perspective. He contends that when the very construction permission, in favour of the 1st respondent, was cancelled, at the instance of the petitioners, there was no question of the petitioners being treated as not affected parties.

(3.) SRI Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have already filed a suit, to pursue their remedies, and the present application is not maintainable, either on facts or in law. He contends that if the petitioners have any cause of action against the 1st respondent, they have to file independent suit, and work out their remedies.