IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1413 OF 2008 Between: V.S. Nair and others .....PETITIONERS AND Satyanagar Colony Welfare Society and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1413 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 27.03.2007, in I.A.No.558 of 2006 in O.S.No.577 of 2003, on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to implead the petitioners/proposed plaintiffs in the suit, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition may be stated as follows: Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein/plaintiffs originally instituted the suit for declaration of ownership in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule property; injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of the possession in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The suit is filed in a representative capacity representing all the plot owners, who are the members of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 – society. Pending the suit, several developments have taken place in the plaint schedule property on account of the high-handedness of respondent No.8 herein/defendant No.2. In view of the subsequent developments in respect of the plaint schedule property, the petitioners herein, who are the third parties, filed the present application in the said suit to implead them as plaintiff Nos.7 to 10 in the suit on the ground that they have purchased the house sites bearing Plot Nos.98, 12, 13, 110, 158, 159 under different registered sale deeds from the original owner for valuable sale consideration. That petition was dismissed on the ground that since respondent No.1 – society has been prosecuting the case representing all the members, the question of impleading the petitioners herein independently does not arise. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners/proposed parties have got some semblance of right over the plaint schedule property since they being the purchasers of the plots by virtue of registered sale deeds from respondent No.7/defendant No.1; that some subsequent developments have taken place on account of the highhandedness of respondent No.8/defendant No.2, who is the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board; that since the suit was instituted in a representative capacity, the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded as parties and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.8, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, contended that the cause of action of respondent Nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs is different; that the suit is not filed in a representative capacity; that respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 has no right, title and interest; that the remedy available to the petitioners/proposed parties is to file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession; that therefore, they cannot be impleaded as parties in the present suit and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. provides for addition or substitution of plaintiffs after the action is brought. The object underlying in this Rule is to save honest claimants, believing bona fide in the maintainability of their claims being non-suited on mere technical grounds. The addition of the plaintiff must be shown to be necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. It is contended that the suit is filed in a representative capacity. Respondent No.1 – society, even according to the pleadings and the material placed before this Court, has no right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property because the original owner, respondent No.7/defendant No.1 is said to have executed an agreement of sale in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3/plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 authorizing them to divide the land into plots and execute the sale deeds to the nominees of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the argument that the suit is filed in a representative capacity basing on the allegations in the pleadings cannot be accepted. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6/plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 are some of the plot owners of the plaint schedule property. The case of the petitioners/proposed parties is that they have purchased individual plots from respondent No.7/defendant No.1 under registered sale deeds on different dates and they have got some semblance of right over the plaint schedule property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Order II Rule 3 C.P.C, which reads as follows: “Joinder of causes of action – (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject matters at the date of instituting the suit.” will apply to the present case so as to avoid needless expenses without causing any injustice to anyone. Above rule enables joinder of several causes of action in one suit in certain case. Several causes of action may be united in a single suit when they are based on the same set of facts as, really in such cases, there is a single cause of action, and it avoids multiplicity of proceedings. But Order II Rule 4 C.P.C. which is in the nature of exception to Rule 3 reads that “No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except – (a) claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof;”. So, the said Rule 4 specifically provides for claim of mesne profits. In view of the fact that originally the suit is filed with alternative relief of recovery of possession, the cause of action in respect of the purchasers of the plots in the survey numbers relating to the petition schedule property is separate and distinct and it must be shown on what date respondent Nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs or the petitioners/proposed parties were dispossessed from the plaint schedule property. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in Basanth Kumar Soni v. Mukund Das Soni and others[1], and contended that when a party shows a fair semblance of title or interest over the suit schedule property, he can be impleaded as a party to the suit. He also relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay[2], wherein it is held thus: “The power of the court to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, came up for consideration before this Court in Razia Begum. In that case it was pointed out that the courts in India have not treated the matter of addition of parties as raising any question of the initial jurisdiction of the court and that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it be the questions relating to movable or immovable property.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 placed reliance on a decision of Orissa High Court in Hadu Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others[3], wherein it is held thus: “…Each plaintiff must establish acquisition of title by adverse possession and that is not common to any other plaintiff as all of them are not interested, in any particular land. Even in the very case Ext.5 dated 9-9- 1895 might take back one of the plaintiffs to a period of more than 60 years before the suit. But other plaintiffs who are not interested in this tiff has separately to prove his own possession for more than 60 years. Clearly therefore in this case the joinder of all the plaintiffs amounts to misjoinder. There is also mis- joinder of causes of action. The order of eviction passed against one plaintiff does not serve as a cause of action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. The learned Subordinate Judge took, a correct view in holding that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness.” So, in view of the above decision, the cause of action in respect of the title, possession and subsequent dispossession are entirely different from individual to individual. When the suit is not filed in a representative capacity, the question of impleading the petitioners herein as plaintiffs in the suit does not arise. Except stating that since some subsequent developments have taken place on account of the highhandedness of respondent No.8, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, the petitioners want to come on record, nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why their presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy in the suit. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1413 OF 2008 February 10, 2011 [1] 2010 (4) ALD 490 [2] 1992 SCC 2 524 [3] AIR 1964 Orissa 159