HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2513 of 2011 Date: October 29, 2011 Between: 1. Smt. A. Varalaxmi & 3 others … Petitioners and 1. P. Ramulu & 5 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2513 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners filed O.S. No.171 of 2005 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking a perpetual injunction restraining respondents 1 to 5 herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule plots. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 10.6.2009. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 to 5 herein filed A.S. No.36 of 2009 before the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Sangareddy. While so, the Municipality, Sangareddy filed I.A. No.1325 of 2010 in the appeal, A.S. No.36 of 2009, seeking to be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings. By order dated 16.3.2011, the appellate court allowed the I.A. permitting the Municipality, Sangareddy, to be added as a party to the proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.171 of 2005, being the contesting respondents in A.S. No.36 of 2009, filed this civil revision petition. 2. This Court, by order dated 13.7.2011, granted interim stay of further proceedings in the appeal pending disposal of this C.R.P. 3. Despite service of notice as long back as on 18.7.2011, the Municipality, Sangareddy, did not choose to put in its appearance before this Court. 4. Heard Sri P. Yadagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5. 5. The suit was filed by the petitioners herein for an injunction against respondents 1 to 5. Perusal of the plaint in the suit reflects that though the Municipality, Sangareddy, was originally shown as defendant No.6, it was thereafter struck off and the suit as such was instituted only against private parties. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner, Sangareddy Municipality, was examined as D.W.2 in the suit proceedings. However, no steps were taken by the Municipality at that stage to get impleaded in the suit proceedings. After the decretal of the suit, the defendants therein filed an appeal before the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC), Sangareddy, in A.S. No.36 of 2009. It is at this stage that the Municipality, Sangareddy, appears to have woken up and allegedly realized that the open space belonging to it was sought to be encroached by the plaintiffs in the suit. It is on this basis that the Municipality, Sangareddy, filed the subject application in the appeal seeking to be impleaded as a party. 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners herein only sought relief against private parties, respondents 1 to 5 herein, in their suit. No relief was sought or granted against the Municipality, Sangareddy. Being the plaintiffs in the suit, the petitioners were dominus litis and it was for them to decide as to against whom they wished to institute legal proceedings. Once they did not choose to add the Municipality, Sangareddy, as a party to the proceedings and did not claim any relief against it, the Municipality, Sangareddy, was not adversely affected by the decree passed in the suit. The aggrieved parties, being the defendants in the suit, filed an appeal which is pending. If the Municipality, Sangareddy, was of the opinion that it has to protect its interest against the plaintiffs in the suit, it could do so independently in accordance with law. Getting itself impleaded in the appeal proceedings arising out of the suit filed by the petitioners herein against private parties, respondents 1 to 5, was not the proper course for it to adopt. 7. The appellate court, having overlooked this aspect, permitted the impleadment of the Municipality, Sangareddy, in the suit proceedings between private parties at the appellate stage. The order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the appellate court permitting such impleadment therefore cannot be countenanced and is accordingly set aside. It is however made clear that this shall not preclude the Municipality, Sangareddy, from initiating steps independently in accordance with law against the petitioners herein in the event there is cause of action to do so. 8. The civil revision petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 29, 2011. BSB