IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5129 of 2010 Between: S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary & 3 others .. Revision Petitioners AND S. Venkat Laxma Reddy & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5129 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/plaitniffs and Sri A. Murali, learned counsel representing Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, apart from Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration representing respondents 4 and 5. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.802 of 2008 in O.S.No.202 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Shadnagar, dated 22.09.2010, dismissing the petition without costs. 3. The revision petitioners/defendants in the suit filed the petition for impleadment of defendants 5 to 7 i.e., the Manager of Sri Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Mogiligidda, the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments, and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments. The defendants contended that Survey No.19 concerned in the suit belongs to the said temple and any injunction concerning right of way or taking a drinking water pipe from the bore well of the plaintiffs touch upon the subject matter of the application filed by the first plaintiff before the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Multi Zone-III, Tilak Road, Hyderabad, pending in File No.A/437/2008 and before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahabubnagar, in File No.B/2268/2008. The institution is one registered under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, and hence, the request. 4. The plaintiffs appear to have filed a counter affidavit contending that this is not a suit for declaration of title and possession and is only for a mere injunction against the defendants from closing the right of suit way. The proposed parties are not proper or necessary parties. 5. The trial Court noted that the proposed defendants remained ex parte after service of notices. It passed the impugned order noting that there were no material allegations against the temple authorities and the plaintiffs are not claiming any rights of ownership over the land in Survey No.19. The proposed defendants were, therefore, considered to be not necessary or proper parties merely because the pipeline is passing through the land belonging to the temple. Hence, the petition was dismissed without costs. 6. The defendants challenged the said orders in revision contending that they, who are the founder trustees of the temple, will suffer great prejudice unless the temple and the endowments officials are represented in the suit as the question of permission to lay a pipeline in Survey No.19 is yet to be decided by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments and as the rights of the temple over the property can be interfered with by recognition of any right of way over Survey No.19 in the absence of the temple. 7. The point for consideration is whether the proposed parties are proper parties to the suit. 8. The copy of the plant which was filed along with the material papers itself shows that the land in S.No.19 and other lands were admittedly temple service inam lands of Sri Ranganayaka Swamy temple at Mogiligidda and the said lands and the temple are under the control of the endowments department. The further averments in the plant show that the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants was in respect of the manner in which the said land in S.No.19 can be subjected to any easementary rights of the plaintiffs. If the said land admittedly belonging to the temple were to be made a servient tenament burdened with the easementary rights of the plaintiff, the temple and the endowments department cannot be said to be totally disinterested persons irrelevant to the suit. Even assuming that they are not necessary parties to the suit, they being proper parties, cannot be in question on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the interests of justice, their impleadment has to be permitted to avoid any future complications and multiplicity of proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.802 of 2008 in O.S.No.202 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Shadnagar, dated 22.09.2010, is set aside and the said I.A.No.802 of 2008 is allowed and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5129 of 2010 Date: 29th July, 2011 KL