IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 of 2011 Between: Smt. Balamani & another .. petitioners AND Smt. C. Rekha & 9 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 16.03.2011, in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in O.S.No.89 of 2005, dismissing the request of the revision petitioners to be impleaded as parties to the suit. 2. The revision petitioners ﬁled the petition for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C”), alleging that respondents 2 to 8 are their brothers and paternal uncles respectively and they are also the legal heirs of their father Balaiah along with respondents 2 to 5. They claimed to have not partitioned the properties which continued to be joint even after the death of the father in 1983 and that the ﬁrst respondent is relying on a false purchase from respondents 9 and 10 who claimed to have purchased Ac. 54.00 from respondents 2 to 8 including the suit land in S.No.343. The petitioners claimed that respondents 2 to 8 have no right of alienation and in any view, the sale is not binding on them being not parties to the sale deed. As their rights will be eﬀected by any determination of the suit on merits in their absence, they desired to be brought on record as defendants 10 and 11. 3. The plaintiﬀ/ﬁrst respondent opposed the request claiming that Laxmaiah was originally the protected tenant of S.Nos.343 and 355 and the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the scheduled property as they are not daughters of Balaiah, who had only four sons who are impleaded as defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. In any view, the silence of the petitioners for 19 years after the sale deed in favour of the plaintiﬀ, extinguishes their rights, if any, by the bar of limitation and the petitioners are, hence, claimed to be not proper or necessary parties to the suit when they neither have any title nor have any possession in the suit property and are prima facie not shown to be in any way connected with Balaiah. 4. In the ﬁrst instance, the petition by the petitioners for impleadment was allowed against which C.R.P.No.2057 of 2009 was ﬁled before this Court, in which this Court found that the order of the trial Court allowing the application was an order without expressing itself as to why the petitioners should be brought on record. Consequently, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. After the remand also, both parties did not appear to have produced any oral or documentary evidence before the trial Court in this application, which proceeded to pass the impugned order referring to the rival contentions and the precedents cited before it. The trial Court opined that the suit is at the stage of trial with the plaintiﬀ’s evidence having been closed after framing of the issues and in some other matters, a similar request by the petitioners was stated to have been negatived. The trial Court also observed that in spite of denial by the plaintiﬀ of any relationship of the petitioners with Balaiah, they did not file a scrap of paper to prove their bona ﬁdes. The trial Court also observed that it is only a person who has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and who would be aﬀected by the result of the suit that will be allowed to come on record, but in the absence of any document or other material to show either any interest for the petitioners or their father in the property or any joint possession of the property at any time, the petitioners cannot be considered to be proper or necessary parties. Inter se questions between the parties to a suit and a third party were held to be beyond the scope of Order I Rule 10 C.P.C and consequently, the petition was dismissed. 5. The revision petitioners contended herein that defendants 2 to 5, being the sons, and their being the daughters of Balaiah, ought to have been accepted when the sons of Balaiah did not dispute the claim that the petitioners are the daughters of Balaiah. The revision petitioners also contended that the adjudication of O.S.No.89 of 2005 will eﬀect the adjudication of O.S.No.62 of 2009 filed by them before the II Additional District Judge’s Court, at Mahabubnagar, seeking partition and, therefore, they desired the impugned order to be reversed claiming that even the lapse of 18 years is no ground to reject their claim. 6. Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N. Bhavani Shankar, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent are heard and the other respondents, being impleaded only as proforma parties, no notice was taken to them. 7. Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, ﬁled a photo showing three males and four females to have taken that photo together claiming that the petitioners and the sons of Balaiah are the persons represented in the photograph probablising their relationship with Balaiah. It is not for this Court to enquire into the identity of the persons in the photograph in the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court and there was no reason as to why the same document was not produced before the trial Court. Even if the males in the photograph are sons of Balaiah and the females therein included the petitioners, how can the same establish their inter se relationship is unexplained. Similarly, the aﬃdavit said to have been given by the second respondent herein on 21.03.1987, referring to the second revision petitioner as his sister aged 10 years, was also ﬁled, by which time the ﬁrst revision petitioner was claimed to have been already married. The declaration by the second respondent, even if it were true, also could have been produced before the trial Court and admitted into and proved in evidence in accordance with law therein, as there is no means by which this Court can conduct an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the contents of the affidavit in this enquiry. Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel sought for a remand of the matter to the trial Court for enabling the petitioners to produce the necessary oral and documentary evidence to prove their relationship, but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had at any time requested the trial Court for an opportunity to produce such evidence which was denied for any reason by the trial Court. If the parties have considered no necessity to produce any evidence before the trial Court, it is for them to face the risk of adjudication without any such evidence and they cannot play hide and seek with judicial proceedings. Both the documents shown are returned in open Court after perusal. 8. Sri Bhavani Shankar, learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent also brought to notice the order passed by the same Court in I.A.No.1059 of 2009 in O.S.No.152 of 2005, dated 17.11.2009, on a similar application in a suit for injunction dismissing the petition requesting them to be impleaded as the daughters of Balaiah observing that admittedly, no documents to prima facie prove or throw light on the relationship with Balaiah or his sons have been filed. The learned Counsel also relied on A. PETER SON ISRAEL VS. V. JAYAPRADA AND OTHERS [1] about the impact of not impleading the petitioners in a similar suit. The learned Judge, while referring to the principle that the plaintiﬀ, as a dominus litus, cannot be compelled to ﬁght litigation against a person with whom he does not wish to litigate, observed that the proposed party will suﬀer no prejudice as the suit itself will fail if the ultimate ﬁnding were to be that the proposed party was a necessary party and not impleaded and at any rate, the ﬁndings in the suit will not operate as res judicata against the proposed party in spite of the suit being for declaration of tile and consequential injunction. The remedy to ﬁle a suit and obtain necessary reliefs against the persons interfering with the rights of the third party was stated by the learned Judge to be still available. 9. The principles laid down in the decision squarely operate to the beneﬁt of the petitioners herein who, therefore, need not be afraid of any of their claims in O.S.No.62 of 2009 being in any way prejudiced by the ﬁndings in O.S.No.89 of 2005 on the operation of any principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. They also need not apprehend any remedy available to them due to relationship with Balaiah if it were true, being barred by their failure to be parties to O.S.No.89 of 2005 when their attempt to be brought on record was resisted by the plaintiﬀ and as their rights remained in tact uneﬀected by the dismissal of their present request, they cannot compel the plaintiﬀ to face them in this suit, while even the brothers of the petitioners, if they are their brothers, can also place appropriate evidence before the trial Court in this suit itself to prove the relationship of the petitioners with Balaiah and any impact on their non-impleadment in the present suit. 10. While all such questions should be left open to be determined on merits, uninﬂuenced by any observations of the trial Court or this Court in considering this application for impleadment of the petitioners, there appears absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is neither shown to be without an opportunity to the petitioners to place their evidence before the Court or to be otherwise untenable in the absence of the petitioners placing an iota of material before the trial Court to even prima facie indicate their probable relationship with Balaiah. Therefore, the civil revision petition should, accordingly, fail. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is, hence, dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 2nd December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 of 2011 Date: 2nd December, 2011 KL [1] 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 102