IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1896 of 2011 Between: M.A. Nayeem .. Petitioner AND M. Abdul Kaleem and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.20 of 2011 in O.S.No.197 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 21-03-2011. The petitioner, who is a third party, requested for his impleadment as the 4th defendant in the suit for a permanent injunction. His claims are that his son was shown as the 1st defendant and the supporters of his son were shown as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of H.Nos.1-7-50/A/1 and 1-7-51/1, near old bus stand, Mahabubnagar and the plaintiff did not add the petitioner intentionally to enable him to commit fraud on his family. Though he gave General Power of Attorney to the 1st defendant to look after his business in the suit property, he is still in joint possession of the property along with the plaintiff and as it was acquired jointly, the 1st defendant has no independent right over the suit property and any findings in the suit may prejudice his rights in the partition suit O.S.No.55 of 2003 filed by him against the plaintiff in which his evidence was already concluded. He, therefore, desired to be added a party to the suit to avoid any prejudice by the proceedings and findings in this suit. The request was resisted by the plaintiff contending that the petitioner himself never interfered with the possession and enjoyment and therefore, he did not implead him as a party to the suit and when he gave a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant in the suit, it is the 1st defendant, who was interfering with his possession due to which he filed the suit. The plaintiff also referred to the other circumstances about the incidents that happened after grant of injunction in the suit and also contended that as arguments commenced in this suit on 1-11- 2010, this petition was filed intentionally to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, passed the impugned order noting that the plaintiff had no grievance against the petitioner and the suit is only for mere injunction in which title may be determined only incidentally. The trial Court also noted that the suit is coming for final arguments after completion of the entire evidence on both sides, at which stage this application was filed. It is not as though the 1st defendant did not conduct the case properly and if O.S.No.55 of 2003 filed for partition by the petitioner is pending, the petitioner has every opportunity to prove his case in that suit. The trial Court relied on the decision of this Court reported in Y. Venkata Reddy and others v. A.P. State Wakf Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and others (2010 (6) ALT 812) and concluded that in the absence of any collusion or fraud against the petitioner by the plaintiff and when the 1st defendant, the son of the petitioner, was contesting the suit and holds a General Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner cannot be said to be effected by this suit and hence, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner again with reference to the same allegations contends herein that the plaintiff is his brother and the 1st defendant is his son and any order in the suit will adversely affect his interests. The petitioner claims to be a proper and necessary party to the suit since the brother of the revision petitioner is claiming exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the decision relied on by the trial Court has no application. The adverse impact on the rights of the petitioner in case of any adverse verdict against the 1st defendant are over looked, and hence, he desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. There is no representation for the 4th respondent during hearing. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is not sustainable? A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Y. Venkata Reddy and others v. A.P. State Wakf Board, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and others[1] and this Court held that in a suit for relief of injunction simpliciter, the question of determination of title does not arise and a reference to title, if at all, would be only in the limited context of understanding the claim of the respective parties in the suit schedule property. The learned Judge was dealing with similar situation where the plaintiff had grievance only against the defendant impleaded in the suit, but not against the third parties who attempted to come on record and the learned Judge noting that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff had the prerogative to choose his opponents and no body can claim right, to get himself impleaded, to the dislike of the plaintiff. It is only when allegations of collusion or fraud are made that the trial Court can consider the feasibility of impleading third parties also, if it is found that their interests are adversely affected on account of their not being made parties. The present case also involves a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner’s son impleaded as the 1st defendant and two others, alleging that they were interfering with the suit schedule properties said to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in his own right as owner. The 1st defendant is not only the son of the plaintiff but also the General Power of Attorney holder for the petitioner for looking after the business. The affidavit in support of the application for impleadment nowhere alleged the 1st defendant to have not properly conducted the defence in the suit or the 1st defendant being hand in glove with the plaintiff in any manner. It also does not allege any such collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 also and in fact, it was stated in the affidavit in support of the application that the defendants 2 and 3 are the supporters of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was very clear in the counter affidavit that there was no interference with the possession by the petitioner and consequently, he did not implead him as a party to the suit. Under the circumstances, any adjudication in the suit between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 can have no adverse impact on the rights and interests of the petitioner herein. Any conclusion of fact arrived at between the parties to the suit will not run with the land as the petitioner is not a party to the suit and any determination of his rights and interests over the suit property were not the subject matter of adjudication. While it is well settled that an injunction does not run with the land, in the face of the opposition of the plaintiff to have the petitioner as his adversary in a simple suit for injunction, the petitioner cannot be thrust on him to be fought against and on the principles laid down in the decision cited, the conclusions of the trial Court about the absence of feasibility of impleading the petitioner cannot be considered to be improper or unreasonable. However, it is made clear that any adjudication of the questions in controversy in O.S.No.197 of 2003 to which the petitioner is not a party will not in any manner adversely effect the rights and interests of the petitioner, if any, over the subject property. Any adjudication of O.S.No.197 of 2003 or any findings therein cannot also have any adverse impact on the adjudication of O.S.No.55 of 2003 said to have been filed by the petitioner in any manner, which has to be determined in accordance with law on its own merits uninfluenced by any proceedings or findings in this suit. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition should, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-08-2011 Ksn [1] 2010 (6) ALT 812