Dr. Pamireddy Bharathi vs. Palle Ram Reddy
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
17 Dec 2012
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1206 of 2012
BETWEEN
Dr. Pamireddy Bharathi.
... PETITIONER
AND
Palle Ram Reddy and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. SASIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. KURITI BHASKAR RAO – R1
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This revision is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District. The order impugned is one allowing the application, being I.A.No.82 of 2011, of the proposed defendant No.5 seeking impleadment in the suit. The said proposed party is the first respondent in this revision.
- A suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the petitioner against the defendants 1 to 4. The first respondent herein filed the aforesaid application seeking impleadment in the suit on the ground that he has, allegedly, purchased a part of the suit schedule property from respondent
No.2/defendant No.1 under an agreement of sale cum general power of attorney dated 16.02.2009 and on that basis,
he claimed interest in the property. In spite of the petitioner opposing the said application by contending that he claimed no relief against the proposed defendant, the Court below allowed the said application.
The said order is questioned in this revision.
-
Heard both sides.
-
Plaintiff being a dominus litus cannot be compelled to fight his suit against such parties against whom he claims no relief.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that he has no claim against the proposed defendant and as such, the order impleading the proposed defendant No.5 in the suit would clearly enlarge the scope of the suit.
-
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being well-founded, the order of the Court below deserves interference and is required to be set aside. So far as the first respondent is concerned, if he claims any right, title or interest, it is open for him to institute his own suit, if he is so advised. However,
the first respondent cannot compel the petitioner to implead him in the present suit for perpetual injunction when petitioner does not claim any relief against the said proposed party.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
_____________________
December 17, 2012 DSK