THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3221 OF 2010 01-10-2010 Between: M.Raju and another ..petitioners Vs. The District Collector, Prakasam District and another …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.3221 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 17-07- 2009 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki allowing CMA No.2 of 2008, a miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents herein. The revision petitioners filed O.S.No.100 of 2005 against the respondents herein seeking permanent injunction in respect of a hill Poramboke property admitting that the family of the first petitioner had encroached on item No.1 of the suit schedule property; the family of the second petitioner similarly encroached on item No.2; and raised huts therein. In the suit a temporary injunction was sought in I.A.No.499 of 2005. The second respondent filed a counter on behalf of the respondents to the I.A asserting that the property belongs to the Government (the State), is classified as Rallagunta and canal as per village records of Singarakonda Village hamlet of Kalavakuru Revenue village; the property in question is a vacant space towards the downward slope of the area of Singarakonda hill abutting the State Highway; that the property is in proximity of the Singarakonda Devsthanam and buses ply nearby the hill on the State highway and stop at the vacant site for embarkation and disembarkation of the devotees to the temple; that encroachment by the petitioners on the property is illegal, since they have neither title nor lawful possession; and they are therefore disentitled for grant of a temporary injunction. By the order dated 23-08-2007, the trial court-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal in C.M.A No.2 of 2008. The lower appellate court on an independent appreciation of the material on record, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs/revision petitioners were not in possession of the suit schedule property prior to 1414 Fasli; that there was no cogent and credible material to establish possession of the revision petitioners on the suit schedule property; that the revision petitioners had suppressed material facts and had approached the court with unclean hands; and were disentitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order of the trial court dated 23-08-2007 granting ad interim injunction in I.A.No.499 of 2005 was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court. It requires to be noticed that admittedly the property in question belongs to the State and the petitioners are claiming permanent injunction against the State while conceding the title of the State to the property. In the circumstances, the State is a necessary and proper party and should be impleaded in its capacity as the State, in view of the provisions of Article 300 of the Constitution and Sec.79 CPC. The State however was not impleaded as a party in the suit. Only the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam and the MRO-cum- Tahsildar, Addanki are impleaded as defendants in the suit; as respondents in I.A.No.499 of 2005 therein; and this fatal error in the framing of the suit is also reflected in C.M.A.No.2 of 2008. The suit itself is not maintainable against the State without the State being impleaded in its juristic capacity as a defendant in the suit. It is however represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that applications have been filed before the trial court for amendment of the cause title in the suit and in the I.A for impleading the State as a defendant and as a respondent in the suit and the interlocutory application, respectively. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court considers it appropriate to set aside the order of the lower appellate court dated 17- 07-2009 in CMA No.2 of 2008 and of the trial court dated 23-08-2007 in I.A.No.499 of 2005 in O.S.No.100 of 2005. If the applications are filed for amendment of the cause title in the suit and in the interlocutory application, the same shall be considered adjudicated by the trial court in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of as above after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. No costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st OCTOBER 2010 TSNR