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.6053 of 2009 Between: Buddolu Yadagiri .. Revision Petitioner AND Buddolu Shravan Kumar & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6053 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though the first respondent/plaintiff was served with notice of the revision, none entered appearance on his behalf. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.188 of 2009 in O.S.No.66 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, dated 03.08.2009. 3. The revision petitioner filed the said interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be impleaded as the third defendant claiming that the plaintiff is the son of his brother Veeraiah, while his sister Koduru Manemma was the owner and possessor of the house No.4-134 in question. The revision petitioner claimed that as Veeraiah died prior to the death of Koduru Manemma, the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in the house and the Will relied on by the plaintiff was false and created. In O.S.No.139 of 2004, filed in respect of the same property, the plaintiff impleaded the revision petitioner as the first defendant, but in O.S.No.66 of 2008, he was not impleaded, so as to prejudice his rights. Any declaration of ownership of the house in favour of the plaintiff will cause prejudice to his rights and he is a necessary party to the suit. The brother of the revision petitioner Sri Kailasam and his sister P. Suvarna are also necessary and proper parties and, hence, the petition. 4. The plaintiff or the defendants to the suit did not file any counter affidavits to the petition and the trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, passed the impugned order stating that the revision petitioner was silent as to how he succeeded to the property of Koduru Manemma and no documents were filed in this regard. The trial Court considered the scope of the suit based on the Will to be limited to the proof of entitlement of the plaintiff for declaration against defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff being the dominus litus, persons whose presence and participation was not chosen by him cannot be considered as proper and necessary parties. The trial Court considered the revision petitioner to be not necessary or proper party and his request to be beyond the scope of the suit and consequently dismissed the petition for impleadment without costs. 5. The revision petitioner challenges the said order on the same grounds raised in the interlocutory application and claimed his impleadment in one suit and non-impleadment in the other suit in respect of the same property to be mala fide. 6. The point for consideration is whether the impleadment of the revision petitioner can be considered as a proper party. 7. Even if the revision petitioner were to be considered to be not a necessary party without whose presence no adjudication of the questions in controversy can be made, the fact remains that the relationship between the parties does not appear to be seriously in dispute. Both parties are claiming interest in the house property only through their relationship with the original owner Koduru Manemma and if the death of Veeraiah, the father of the plaintiff, prior to the death of Koduru Manemma was true and if the revision petitioner became entitled to a share in the said house on the death of Koduru Manemma, he is undoubtedly a person having subsisting valuable right and interest in the subject property. But for the Will relied on by the plaintiff, he would have been justified in making a claim in respect of the house along with his brother and sister. The plaintiff, who impleaded the revision petitioner in O.S.No.139 of 2004 concerning the same property, his claim in both the suits being based on the Will said to have been executed by Koduru Manemma, had chosen, for reasons best known to him, not to implead the revision petitioner in O.S.No.66 of 2008 and any declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff in that suit in the absence of the revision petitioner is undoubtedly likely to create future complications and multiplicity of proceedings if the revision petitioner seeks to assert his right and interest in the property. The trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff being the dominus litus can choose the persons against whom he seeks any relief but did not lay emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff himself did not file any counter affidavit in the application filed by the revision petitioner for his impleadment. The absence of any counter affidavit for the plaintiff against the request may indicate the absence of any objection for the plaintiff for the impleadment of the revision petitioner even if not indicating tacit consent. As the revision petitioner can be considered to be a proper party whose presence will help in better and comprehensive adjudication of the questions in issue concerning the subject property, his request for impleadment can be permitted in the interests of justice. 8. In the result, the order, dated 03.08.2009, in I.A.No.188 of 2009 in O.S.No.66 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, is set aside and the said I.A.No.188 of 2009 is allowed without costs. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6053 of 2009 Date: 29th July, 2011 KL