THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4182 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20.02.2008 in I.A. No.956 of 2007 in C.M.A. No.73 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal. 2. The petitioners herein viz. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Warangal and the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, filed the petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to implead them as respondents 2 and 3 in the C.M.A. and the same was dismissed on the ground that they are not necessary and proper parties to bring on record. 3. Originally, the respondents 1 to 3 herein and another filed O.A. No.1 of 1999 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal under Section 87 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the fourth respondent herein, for declaration of suit temple as a private one. After hearing the contesting parties therein, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 06.10.2004, held that the suit temple is a public temple having access to general public, and accordingly disposed of the O.A. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed C.M.A. before the learned District Judge, and during pendency of the C.M.A., the petitioners herein filed the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead them as respondents 2 and 3 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that as per the revenue records, the land on which the temple was constructed, belongs to the government and the Government has got right and interest to contest the case to safeguard its interest, and in its absence, the right and interest of the Government would be adversely affected, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that scope of enquiry under Section 87 (1) of the Act is very limited and rival title cannot be adjudicated in the enquiry before the Commissioner, and so, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. There cannot be any dispute that under Order I Rule 10 CPC, any party can come on record at any time provided he has some semblance of right or interest over the schedule property in dispute. No doubt, it is not a dispute with regard to the title of the lands attached to the temple and also no relief is claimed with regard to resolving title of the parties, but, at the same time, it is stated in the petition that the temple is situated in lands bearing survey nos. 1148 and 1149 of Hanamkonda and the temple was being managed by the rents derived from the shops bearing nos. 6/120 to 129 and that they were demolished in road widening. The contention of the respondents 1 to 3 herein is that it is a private temple and the respondent no.2 herein is entitled to manage the affairs of the temple, whereas the contention of the Government is that the temple itself was constructed on the government land and therefore any orders that may be passed by the learned District Judge in the C.M.A. will adversely affect the right, title and interest of the Government, and to safeguard its interests, the petitioners may be impleaded as respondents in the C.M.A. The contention of the petitioners appears to be correct, because, even though the dispute is not with regard to the title of the property involved, at the same time, necessary finding has to be given as to whether the temple is a private temple or public temple. Therefore, there is some semblance of right in favour of the Government to protect its interests as it is claiming that the temple in question was constructed on the land belonging to the government. As there is semblance of right in favour of the Government, the petitioners can be brought on record in the C.M.A. so as to safeguard its interest. These aspects have not been considered by the learned District Judge. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, consequently, I.A. No.956 of 2007 in C.M.A. No.73 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Warangal stands allowed. No costs. --------------------- 23.9.2010 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4182 of 2008 23.09.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4182 of 2008 23.09.2010 Between: State of A.P., rep. by the District Collector, Warangal & another …Petitioners And Jagadeesh Diety of Jagadeesh Temple, & others …Respondents