Mula Kalavathi and Others vs Suddala Narayana and Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—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.

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.

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.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners hold property in the immediate neighbourhood of the suit schedule property. It is also a matter of record, that the petitioners filed objections and representations before respondents 2 and 3, to the permission accorded to the 1st respondent, and the same resulted in cancellation of the construction permission. When the very cause of action for filing of the suit was, the very cancellation of the construction permission, it is rather unthinkable that the petitioners cannot be treated as proper and necessary parties to the suit.

Whatever may have been the justification for the 1st respondent in filing the suit, without impleading the petitioners, knowing fully well that the permission, in his favour, was cancelled at their instance, the trial Court ought to have ordered the I.A. No. 2121 of 2002, almost unhesitatingly. The principle, referred to above, by the trial Court, in its order, applies to cases where an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., is filed by a plaintiff, in the suit. Those parameters cannot be applied to an application filed by a third party. In such cases, the paramount consideration would be, whether the proposed party would suffer any detriment, or receive any impact on account of the adjudication in the suit. Viewed from the said angle, it becomes clear that the petitioners are not only proper, but also necessary parties to the suit.

Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside, and consequently, the I.A. shall stand allowed. Since the suit is of the year 2002, and the matter was pending for the past more than five years before this Court, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit itself, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.