IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4952 OF 2009 Between: Pedda Yellaiah and others .....PETITIONERS AND T. Shaik Mahaboob Basha and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4952 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 05.08.2009, in I.A.No.1528 of 2008 in O.S.No.25 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to implead the proposed parties mentioned in the petition schedule as defendant Nos.6 to 8 in the suit and permit the respondents herein/plaintiffs for consequential amendment, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein contended that even by the time of filing of the present suit itself, respondents herein/plaintiffs knew about the filing of a suit by the petitioners herein/defendants against the Government; that the respondents herein have not filed any petition at the earliest point of time; that the earlier application filed by the respondents herein to implead the proposed parties was dismissed; that there cannot be issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. during pendency of the suit, and notice under Section 80 C.P.C. must be preceded by filing of suit and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that since the issue of title of the parties is involved, it has to be resolved by the trial Court once for all and for effective adjudication of the dispute, the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit; that the title of the parties can be determined in the presence of Government, as Government is also claiming the property as belonging to it and therefore, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. If the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of material on record and a perverse finding is recorded, then it needs to be interfered in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any dispute that adding of parties is entirely a discretionary power, which has to be exercised in a judicious manner. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C. empowers a Court to deal with all cases of defect of parties. It enables a Court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined or to add any person as a party who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant. It is, therefore, the duty of Court to keep in mind a relevant consideration that as far as possible multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. But at this stage it must be shown that the party who has to be impleaded in the suit must be having some semblance of right over the property. 5. No doubt, the petitioners filed a suit against the Government and obtained a decree and the Government preferred an appeal against the said decree, which is said to be pending. Therefore, prima facie Government is also claiming title in respect of the same property. Hence, the respondents filed an application to implead the Government as a party, as they also claimed title to the suit schedule property. Even assuming that the respondents have knowledge about the filing of a suit by the petitioners against the Government, still that cannot be a ground to reject the application filed by the respondents, considering the fact that the Government has some semblance of right over the suit schedule property. If the proposed parties come on record, the dispute can be resolved once for all and certainly it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. With regard to notice under Section 80 C.P.C., the underlying object of Section 80 C.P.C. is to give the Government or Public Officer sufficient notice of the case proposed to be brought, and to afford opportunity to reconsider the legal position, to take stock of the situation to avoid litigation and to decide whether the claim of the ‘prospective plaintiff’ should be accepted or resisted. The purpose of law is advancement of law. The proposed parties have already filed an appeal against the decree and judgment obtained by the petitioners herein. The Government already knew about the dispute with regard to title in relation to the plaint schedule property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. during the pendency of the suit can be said to be a proper notice within the scope and ambit of Section 80 C.P.C. The earlier application to implead Government as party was dismissed with a leave to issue notice under Section 80 C.P.C. for the purpose of impleading Government as party. In pursuance of that order, respondents herein got issued notice under Section 80 C.P.C. For the said notice, Government gave reply claiming right over the plaint schedule property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, proposed parties are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 28, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4952 OF 2009 January 28, 2011