K. Madhava Rao v. Sri G.V. Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NOS : 968 AND 969 0F 2014 cRP NO.96 a oF 2014:

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 2410312014 in lA No.120 of 2C14 in lA No.45/2014 in OS No.162/2014 on the file of the Court of the Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad BETWEEN K. Madhava Rao S,/o K. Satyanarayana, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee.

R/o. Flat bearing No. 6-3-61'2/ D / 6, Sowbaghya Apartments, Anand Nagar, HYderabad AND l l

...Petitioner

1. Sri G.V. Rao, S/o Late G. Punnaiah, Aged about 84 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat bearing No. 6-3-612/D, Sowbaghya Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad.

I.t

2. Smt. Manoramma W/o Shiva Shankar, Aged about 57 years, Occ: EmPloYee, R/o. Flat bearing No. 6-3-612/ D / 10, Sowbaghya Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Gleater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Cum Speclal Officer, Having office at Municipal Complex, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad.

.Respondents CRPMP. NO: 1333 OF 2014 Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to staY of all further pro.".Oing. in O.S. No. 162 of 2014, on the file of the Hon'ble Vl Junior Civil Judge' bity Ciuit Court, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the revision $

b $* r RPS NO:

820F \ \t.].

Betw'ecn:

J. chandram, uli Raju. S o Vc,rlirrtu Ruju Aged abJut '4 years. IUo. Flir No. D.5 Sowbhagya \partments, Anar rd Nagar Colony, I(hr iratabad, Llyderzrl'rad-004 G. Prabhu, S /o. Late Mahader Lldu Aged about i5 yeals, R/o. Flal No. D.9 Sowbhagya \partments, Anarrd Nagar Colony, I(hr iratabad, I lyderat,ad-004 J.T. Venkati Rarna Rajtr, S/o. Chandr Lmouli Raju, aged 43 years, R/o. Flat N< . D.8, Sowbhagyir Apartments, Anand Nagr r Colony, l(hairatabad, I-Iyclerabad- )04 B.J. Mohan Rao, S/o.

Aged about 59 yeals, R/o. Flar No. D.7 Sowbhagya Apartments, Anancl Nagar Colony, I(h tiratabad, l-lyderahad-004 Thanl<arn C rpi, W/o. late Copi Agecl about 67 years. R/o. Flat No. D,2 Sowbhagya Apartrnents, Anar r'-l \rgar Colony. Kh riratabad, Hyderahrrd-004 . . . Petitioners/ I)roposeci Respondents ANt l(. Madhav L I{ao, S/o.Satyzrrrara}'.rrra Aged abour 65 years. R/o. Flat No.D.6 Sowbhagyt Apartrnents, Anand Nagar Colony, I(l airatabad, Ftyderahad-004 l.

. RespondentiPetitioner G.V. Rao, ,/o, late G. Put.rnaiah, aged about 84 years, R/o. Flat No. 6-3-6 1 ]/D,Sbwlhagya Apartrnents, Anand Nag ar Colony, I(hairatabad, Ilyderabad 004 2.

,./ 6s:

l / J Smt. Manorarra, W/o. Shiva Shankar Aged about 57 years, R/o, Flat I'lo. D. l0 Sowbhagya Apartments. Anand Nagar Colony, I(hai ratabad, Flyderabad-004 u GHMC, rep. by its Countissioner-cumSpecial Officer, Lower 'lank Bund Hyderabad.

... Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to vacate the .irv oiJei J"t"o 2810312014 granted in CRp No.968 of 2014 For the Petitioner : SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARY, Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : SRt M.SHTVANAND KUMAR, Advocate l F.--*E"-d-__ _

c P o.

OF 201 L Petition under Arricre 227 0f constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 24/0312014 in rA No 12112014 in os No.'162l2014 0n the fire of the court of the Vr Junior Civil Judge, Ci y Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ( BETWEE} :

dha. a Rao S/o K. Satyan arayana, Aged abor t 65 years, Occ: Rtd. Employee, R/o. Flat t :aring No. 6-3-6.12/D/6 !-olbaghy r Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyrleraba< .

AND

...Petitioner ,,-

1. Sri G.V. lao, S/o Late G. punnaiah, Aged abor t 84 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat t earing No. 6-3-612/D, Sowbaghyr Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabac .

2. Smt. Ma roramma W/o Shiva Shankar, Aged abou 57 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat b .aring No.6-3-6t2f Df rc, Sowbagtyt Apartments, Anand Nagar, Hyderabad 3, Gleater I :yderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its lommissioner Cum Special Officer, Having offj :e at Municipa I Conrple.., Tank bund load, Hydeiabad.

... Respondentq.,/ / For the petitioner : SF I D.VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate For the Respondent N rs.1 & 2 : SRI V.M.M.CHARy, Advocate For the Respondent N r.3 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the foli wing. COMMON ORDER

/, THE HON'IlI-E SRl.ItrS-ttCE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY CRP \os.96ti and 969 of 201 ,l COMMON ORDER:

l.

The revision petitioner/proposed respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has filed these civil revision petitions, assailing the common order dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2Ol4 in IA No.45 of 2014 in OS No.l62 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in IA No.121 of 2014 in the said suit. 2.

The revision petitioner/proposed party in the array of respondenVdefendant has filed an application under Order-I, Rule 10(2) read with Section l5l of the Civil procedure Code and read with Rule 28 ol'the Civil Rules ol Practice seeking to implead him as defendant No.2 in the rnain suit and respondent No.2 in IA No.45 of 2014 to enable rhe Coun ro adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit ettectually and completely and further to permit him to contest the above suit as defendant No.2 and consequently, to amend the IA No.45 of 2014.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit for perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) restraining the defendant-GHMC from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the revision petitioner has filed IA No. I2l of 2014 under Order-I. Rule10 (2) read with Section l5 i of the Civil Procedure Code and read fl =--+_.

AVRJ CRP Nos.968 &9(r9 of 2014 with Rule 28 o' the Civit Rules of Practice to implead him as defendant No.2. Similarly he also irled IA No'120 of 2014 in IA No.45 ol 2014. emporary injunction petition in OS No'162 of 2014 for impleading him as respondent No'l -that application was disn.rissed by he Court below' through common order dated 24.03.2014.

4.

The case of the revision petitioner is that due to demolition process, his fla will damage and it cannot be compensated' It is an admitted fact tl at the petitionff is one of the flat owners in the same built up area o1 lWs' Sowbaghya Apartments' Anandnagar' Hyderabd' The responder t Nos'1 & 2' who are the plaintiffs' have obtained structure stabil Lty certificate marked as Ex.R. r, which shows that it is not advisable o remove the walls in the ground floor in the present state as it may afi-ect stability of structut'e ln lact' the petitioner is also a resident of same apartment and Ex'R' 1 suppons the case of the petltloner.

5.Wherels,theContenliolloithepetititlne'randresl.londentsl&2 is that the G lMC, third respondent is proceeding tbr demolition of the ground 1 oor, which may affect the stability of the flats in the apafiment. I he Coun below in the order impugned has stated that the stability of s ructure will be decided at a later stage and it is a suit for injunction s mplicitor against the third respondent and whether such structure ca t be demolished or not will also be decided after full r

/ AVRJ CRP Nos.968 &969 of 2014 L length of trial and for irnpleadment of the petitioner' it is not required to be decided and accordingly held that the petitioner is not a proper and necessary Part) to thc suit'

6.

Order-I, Rulc-10 (2) of CPC deals u'ith the powers of the Court to strike out or add parties. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party' on such terms as may appear to the court to be just' order that the name of any party improperty joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant' be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved may add or strike out the party' 7.

This is a sr'rit for perpetual iniunction filed by ptaintiffs I & 2 against the sole deferrclant/Gl IN{C' rvho remained absent in spite of granting ample opportunity. Wheleas, respondents/plaintiflfs I & 2 are suppofting the clainl of the proposed parly stating that he is one of the resident of Sowbaghya Aparlments and his presence is essential and that he is supporting the plaintiffs cause' if any part of the apartment is demolished, it would affect the stabiiity of the entire building. A proper party is one whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions invoived in the proceedings' l+

AVRJ Clit' Nos 968 & 969 of20l4 8.

In the ir istant case, the revision petitioner is a resident of same apaltment and he is also atfected it'a por-tion ot'building is rernoved by GHMC. I- e is directly interested in the sub.ie.ct matter and the plaintiff beinl a dominis /irrs has no ob.jecrion fbr irnpleading the proposed part. in the array of def'endants. It is clearly submined by the leamed co rnsel for the plaintiffs that the proposed party/revision petitioner is a necessary parfy to adjudicate the issues effectually and completely, br ing one ofthe affected persons by the arbitrary act of the third respo rdent/GHMC.

9.

The Ho r'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of necessary part es in Public Service Commission v. Mamto Bishtt held, that an affbc ed party has to be irnpleadecl lbr ell-ecrually and completely ad udicating the issue in dispute. 'l hr-rs, there cannot be any trace of loubt that an aftecred pany has to be impleaded to eflectually an< completely resolve the issues involved. In that view of the matter, in r uch circumstances, I find that the Coun below failed to appreciate the facts of the case considering the principles laid under Order-I, Rule- 0 (2) oiCPC.

10. In the rt sult, both the Civil Revision petitions are allowed and the common ,rrder dated 24.03.2014 in IA No.120 of 2014 in IA No.45 of 2014 in OS No.162 of 2014 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Ci yil Court, Hyderabad, and in IA No.l2l of 2014 in the ' (1010) ll SCC 20

.--=+--- k Page 5 of s AVRJ CRP Nos.968 & 969 of20t4 said suit, is hereby set aside. Consequently, these two applications in IA No. 120 of 2014 and IA No. l2l of 2014 are ailowed and the proposed party/revision petitioner herein sha, be brought on record in the array of de fbndanti respondent as defendant No.2 and respondent No.2. In the circurnstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications. if any pending in these revision petitions shall stand c losed.

Sd/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^_,/ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ?. 9nu CC to Srio.viiavixuma'r., ffi"#;?oiridi'"

9. 9n" CC to Sriv.v.v[.Cnary, nbvocate i6FLjc]-,

3. ?,13 33 3Jr',:3"*'

nespohaeniSiir,r)5iru-#no Kumar, Advocate (opUC) 6_. One Spare Copy KJ.

lN!

t F._---E

HIGH COURT DATED3111212021 rQ A\

ORDER

CRP.Nos.968 and 96( ol 2014 ALLOWING THE Ct P.

{k