The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition Nos.4160 and 4165 of 2011 Date: 29.10.2011 Common Order: These two Civil Revision Petitions raise common issues of fact and law apart from the fact that the parties are common. Hence, both these cases are heard and disposed of together. Initially, notices were served on respondent Nos.5 to 7, 11 and 12. As notices on respondent Nos.8 to 10 were not served, the cases were adjourned to enable the learned Counsel for the petitioners to enable them to serve notices on the said respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a memo along with proof of service showing that notices have been served on respondent Nos.8 to 10 in both the Civil Revision Petitions. Despite service of notices on all the respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against Common Order, dated 25th August, 2011, of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, in IA.No.375 of 2011 in IA.No.26 of 2011 and IA.No.376 of 2011 in OS.No.5 of 2011. CRP.Nos.4160 and 4165 of 2011 arise out of the Order in IA.Nos.375 and 376 of 2011 respectively. The petitioners are plaintiffs in OS.No.5 of 2011 filed against respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed IA.No.26 of 2011 for temporary injunction in which an ad interim injunction was granted against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA.Nos.375 and 376 of 2011 for impleading respondent Nos.5 to 12 in IA.No.26 of 2011 and OS.No.5 of 2011 respectively. In the affidavit, filed in support of these applications, the petitioners averred that on 18-01-2011 when they were attending to their business work in the poultry farms situated in the suit schedule lands, the original respondents/defendants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with the help of their henchmen and anti-social elements came to the suit schedule lands and tried to dispossess them and that as the plaintiffs were not aware of the names of the persons, who accompanied respondent Nos.1 to 4, they could not be impleaded in the suit. They have further averred that subsequently, they came to know of the particulars of the said persons and therefore, they have filed IA.Nos.375 and 376 of 2011 for impleadment of the said persons as respondents/defendants in IA.No.26 of 2011 and OS.No.5 of 2011. Notices were ordered to the proposed respondents, in pursuance of which, they have filed their appearance. But they did not file counter-affidavits opposing their impleadment. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 alone filed their counter- affidavits. The Court below rejected both the IAs on the reasoning that as on the date of filing of the suit, the cause of action arose only against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and that no cause of action had arisen against the proposed respondents. It was further reasoned that a claim for injunction is a right in personam and not a right in rem and therefore, if the petitioners have any grievance against the proposed respondents, they can file a separate suit against them. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Court below has dismissed both the IAs. At the hearing, Sri H.Yogesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, invited my attention to the averments contained in the affidavit, which, as noted above, were to the effect that the proposed respondents have accompanied respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 18-01-2011 when they sought to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule property and that they could not be impleaded when the suit was filed as they had no knowledge of their names and other details. Even though a copy of the plaint was not filed, the leaned Counsel has furnished a copy thereof, at the hearing, a perusal of which would show that in para 8, the petitioners have categorically averred that on 18-01-2011 when plaintiffs 1 to 3 were attending to their business work in the poultry farms, the defendants with the help of their henchmen and anti- social elements came over the suit schedule lands and tried to dispossess them. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below that no cause of action accrued against the proposed respondents on the date of filing of the suit is factually incorrect. The Court below has also committed a serious error in dismissing the application for impleadment by adopting the reasoning that, as the relief of injunction is in personam and not in rem, the suit can be effectually and completely adjudicated without adding the proposed respondents as parties to the injunction application and also to the suit. The purpose of impleadment of parties is not only to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute pending before the Court but also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. When the plaintiffs are able to plead and substantiate that the proposed respondents have also sought to interfere with their possession, by rejection of their applications to implead the proposed respondents as parties to the injunction application and suit, they will be forced to resort to filing of a separate suit and injunction application therefor, which is not desirable, as the same promotes multiplicity of proceedings. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court below fell into a serious error in rejecting the applications of the petitioners filed for impleadment of the proposed respondents. In the premises as above, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the Common Order, dated 25-08-2011, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, in IA.No.375 of 2011 in IA.No.26 of 2011 & IA.No.376 of 2011 in OS.No.5 of 2011, is set aside. Consequently, IA.Nos.375 and 376 of 2011 stand allowed. ________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th October, 2011 LUR