HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 3329 of 2008 Date: 23-12-2010 Between: T. Dayanand and others ……. Petitioners and E. Mallesh and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 3329 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein, who are the third parties, filed this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order, dated 16-04-2008 passed in I.A.No.2008 of 2008 in O.S.No.132 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, which was filed by them purportedly under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to implead them as defendants in the suit. Admittedly the suit is one for injunction. The Court below, by taking into account the said fact and also the fact that it would increase the scope of the suit and further the relief of injunction is in the nature of personam, dismissed the application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances and especially under the guise of the present suit proceedings, the respondents herein are trying to interfere and encroach the property belonging to the petitioners and therefore, it is necessary that the petitioners should be impleaded. In support, the learned counsel sought to place reliance on a decision of this Court in SRI VASAVI KANYAKA SEVA TRUST v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, R.R. DISTRICT [1], wherein, while considering the facts and circumstances and especially having regard to the denial of title, this Court held that: “(14) IN view of the aforesaid principles as laid down by the apex Court and also a division Bench of this Court, the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. have to be given a very liberal interpretation. There cannot be a blanked proposition that in every suit for injunction, the parties cannot be impleaded and Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be made applicable. No doubt, each case has to be looked from the facts and circumstances involving therein vis-à-vis the pleas as set up by the parties. If the parties on either side come up with independent titles and claims, it cannot be said that the scope of the enquiry is as narrow as to treat the suit as one for simpliciter injunction but certainly gets widened to embark upon the question of title. In Sannasi Ambalagarau vs. Venkatapathy Chetty a Division Bench of the madras High Court held: “where title is denied, a suit for injunction is maintainable, though not coupled with a prayer for declaration of title, as the prayer for an injunction necessarily involves a declaration of title.” (15) AS already held, it has to be seen as to whether the presence of the party, though may not be a necessary, would be a proper one and enables the Court to properly adjudicate the matter in the presence of all the parties and the material as produced on their behalf. Any such denial would not only may lead to inconsistent decrees in respect of the same subject matter and in some cases, collusive decrees cannot be ruled out to hoodwink the real title holders. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the applications to implead and I am satisfied that there is justifiable claim touching upon the subject matter and the respondent No.3’s presence would only enhance the assistance to the Court.” The above observations particularly apply to the facts of the said decision only, since the present case totally stands on a different footing. Admittedly there is no question of nature of title or any comprehensive nature of claim set forth. Even otherwise, it certainly gets widened by entry of the petitioners as third parties. If really the petitioners are complaining that under the guise of these proceedings, the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession, it would amount to fresh cause of action. It is left open to the petitioners to avail independent remedy of filing comprehensive suit for declaration or injunction, but not necessarily to make entry in the present proceedings. In the circumstances, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 23-12-2010 YCR [1] 2000 (2) ALT 645