Gudula Sitaratnam vs Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu and others

Heard both sides.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam dated 23-4-1999 passed in IA No.426 of 1999 in OS No.227 of 1995 under which the petitioner''s plea for impleading him as a defendant in the suit has been dismissed.

It appears that the plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction against the defendants with an averment that they are his tenants. The revision petitioner, a third party to the suit in OS No.227 of 1995, claims as seen from the affidavit in support of the petition in the trial Court that he had entered into an agreement of purchase of the suit property from one Baratam Satyanarayana in 1995, who died later. It so happens that the plaintiffs are said to have acquired title to the suit properly under a registered sale deed from Boredom Bangaramma.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasises the fact that the learned Junior Judge dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the application was filed at a belated stage as seen from the learned Junior Judges reference to the fact that the case was an identified case for expeditious disposal. The approach of the learned Junior Judge in dealing with this petition laying stress on the fact that it was an old suit and was identified for its disposal may leave something to be desired but when examined on facts the dismissal of the petition appears quite justified on merits also.

It may be mentioned here that the suit was for eviction of a tenant. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that, in fact, the defendants-tenants have not disputed the title of the plaintiffs in the suit. At any rate, in a suit for eviction filed by the owner against his tenant, the question that would arise for consideration would be whether the defendant is a tenant or not and whether the tenancy was properly terminated and whether he is liable to be evicted or not. The question of examining petitioner''s title based on agreement of sale would scarcely arise in such a suit. If the petitioner has some rights based on agreement of sate in his favour, it is open to him to vindicate his rights by way of a separate suit. His presence in the suit would in no way assist the Court in determining the questions involved in the suit. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner, on the facts of the case, can be considered either as a necessary or even a proper party to the suit. In fact, it is brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently the petitioner herein has already filed a separate suit for specific performance in OS No.273 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Srikakularn.

Thus, the order dismissing the petitioner''s application for impleading himself as a party is absolutely justified and does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.