THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3139 OF 2010 Dated 6th August, 2010 Between: M/s Victory Seeds Private Limited …Petitioner And M/s Bejo Seethal Seeds Private Limited and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Venugopal Reddy Goddindla The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 05.07.2010 in I.A.No.27 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short “the Court below”). The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 2010 filed against respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,89,950/- with future interest. It is the case of the petitioner that it has supplied seeds to respondent No.2, of which respondent No.3 is the Managing Director and that having received the seeds, they have failed to pay the value thereof to the petitioner. Evidently the petitioner got certain amounts lying in the Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation (APSSDC) attached by way of a garnishee order. Respondent No.1 has filed the abovementioned I.A under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for its impleadment in the suit. It has pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that respondent No.2 was appointed as its distributor under authorisation certificate dated 27.05.2008 to sell, store and distribute the seeds of Bejo brand in the State of Andhra Pradesh; that the said distributor is no longer continuing as its agent and that it was never authorised to borrow any money from any third party and that respondent No.1 is not aware of the money transaction between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. It is further averred that the petitioner cannot seek to attach the property lying with APSSDC and therefore, it was necessary to add respondent No.1 as defendant No.3 to contest the suit. The said application was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein it is averred that respondent No.1 is not a necessary party to the suit and that it has no connection whatsoever with the suit transaction. It is further averred that the attached amount belongs to respondents 2 and 3. The Court below, while allowing the application, observed that whether respondent No.1 has any link with the suit transaction and the money under attachment are points to be discussed and decided after the trial and that as respondent No.1 has urged to protect its interests, it should be permitted to come on record as a party. In my opinion, the Court below failed to perceive the true scope and purport of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. For proper appreciation, this provision is reproduced herein below. “(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” From the above reproduced provision, it is clear that where the Court feels that the presence of a party whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, it may add such a party to the suit. From the pleadings of both the parties, it is not a case where either the plaintiff has made any claim against respondent No.1 or is it the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that it is interested in any part of the suit claim. Far from raising any such plea, respondent No.1 has clearly stated in its affidavit that respondents 2 and 3 are no longer its agents and that it is not aware of any money transactions between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, the presence of respondent No.1 is not necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the question involved in the suit. The only plea raised by respondent No.1 in its affidavit is that the amount attached by the petitioner herein belongs to it. This dispute if at all is confined to the attachment proceedings initiated by the petitioner. If the interests of respondent No.1 are involved with respect to the money which is under attachment, by all means, it can contest the application pertaining to the attachment without getting itself impleaded as a party to the suit. The distinction between the suit and the miscellaneous applications filed in the suit needs to be maintained. As respondent No.1 is not barred from seeking appropriate relief qua the attachment order passed by the Court below, it is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings. For the abovementioned reasons, the order of the Court below is set aside, however, with liberty to respondent No.1 to avail appropriate remedy if it felt aggrieved by the order of attachment granted in favour of the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRPMP No.4166 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th August, 2010 vrn