PARASURAM MANGACHARYULU Vs. PARASURAM BALARAMA KRISHNAMACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise an order made by the learned District Munsif of Tenali by which he -allowed a petition presented on behalf of the second respondent here that she may also be impleaded as a party to a suit O.S. No. 66 of 1935. The application was presented under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C.. The relevant portion of the rule is worded as follows: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order... that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually, and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(2.) It is obvious from this provision that the Court in making an order directing a new party to be added must be satisfied either that that party ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or that the presence of that party is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. From the order of the learned District Munsif it appears that at the hearing of the application, the Vakil for the plaintiffs was absent and only the first plaintiff was present in person to represent his objections. The learned District Munsif says that the first plaintiff was unable to explain what detriment would be suffered by him if the petition was granted. Then he says that he sees no detriment that would be caused to the plaintiff if the second respondent here were brought on record as the second defendant. He also says that he does not see how it widens the scope of the suit or changes the character of it. From these statements contained in the order it is clear that the learned District Munsif did not apply his mind to the essential requisites prescribed by Order 1, Rule 10 and therefore it became necessary for the learned Advocates for the parties to address lengthy arguments before me in support of their respective contentions.

(3.) The suit was filed by three plaintiffs and the main reliefs asked for in the plaint were the following: (1) to declare the plaintiffs hereditary right to perform archaka service in the Chennakesava Anjeneya Swami Varu Temple situated in the village of Nidubrolu; (2) to remove the defendant from the position of archaka and to declare that the defendant has absolutely no right to the archaka service; (3) to remove the defendant from possession of the house mentioned as item 2 in the schedule to the plaint and to put the plaintiffs in possession thereof; (4) to direct the defendant to give the plaintiffs the property mentioned in item 3 of the schedule to the plaint or its value; and (5) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in future with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the rights to perform archaka service.