HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4974 of 2010 Date: July 6, 2011 Between: Alladi Eashwar Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, aged 64 years, Occ:business, R/o.H.No.2-6-7, Jangaon town and mandal, Warangal District and another … Petitioners And Madagani Komuraiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Jangaon town and mandal, Warangal District (died) per L.Rs., and others ... Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.299 of 2006, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. By the aforesaid order, I.A.No.142 of 2008 filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is dismissed. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.299 of 2006 against respondents 2 and 3 herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property – house plot bearing No.B5 admeasuring 200 square yards covered by Sy.No.401 of Jangaon revenue village and Mandal in Warangal District. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first respondent died and respondents 4 to 8 herein are brought on record as his legal representatives. In the aforesaid suit, respondents 2 and 3 herein filed I.A.Nos.268 of 2007 to order production of proceedings and certain records from the office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal; I.A.No.425 of 2007 to note down the physical features, identification, location and measurement of the suit schedule property in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 401; and I.A.No.426 of 2007 to direct the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records not to survey the suit lands in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 401. When the Court below allowed all these applications, petitioners herein filed revision petitions before this Court in C.R.P.Nos.5595, 5596 and 5547 of 2007 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by common order dated 03-12- 2007, dismissed the said revision petitions on the ground that as they are not parties in the suit, their remedy is to approach the Court below for impleadment and they cannot directly approach this Court. While dismissing the revision petitions, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Court below with appropriate applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC and the Court below was directed to decide the same by giving opportunity to all the parties concerned. After disposal of the revision petitions, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.142 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for their impleadment as party defendants in the suit in O.S.No.299 of 2006 and in the I.As. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated that they are the owners of the land covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401 of Jangaon revenue village, which is situated near Hyderabad road and the same is their ancestral property. It is stated that they have developed the land and converted into plots and the first respondent herein purchased a plot in Sy.No.401. It is their case that respondents 2 and 3 herein are owners of the land in Sy.No.334 of Jangaon revenue village which is abutting their land in Sy.Nos.400 and 401 and when there was dispute with regard to boundary, they carried the matter to the Survey and Settlement authorities; who surveyed and fixed the boundaries by conducting panchanama. It is stated that only to circumvent such survey and demarcation, respondents 2 and 3 filed the aforesaid three applications, to unsettle the survey done on the application of the petitioners covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401. It is further stated that the suit in O.S.No.299 of 2006 is a collusive suit between respondents 2 and 3 and the first respondent and although directions were obtained with regard to land covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401, petitioners were not impleaded as parties; as such they are necessary and property parties to the suit as well as I.As. Respondents 2 and 3 and the first respondent have filed counter, contesting the said application for impleadment only on the ground that as much as the suit is for injunction simplicitor, petitioners cannot come on record as party-defendants and if there is any boundary dispute it is for them to lay their claim independently. Petitioners herein have also further denied the averments in the counter that they have sold away their land covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401 of Jangaon revenue village. The court below mainly on the ground that the suit is for injunction simplictor covered by Sy.No.401 and as there is no dispute with regard to the boundary for the aforesaid piece of land, rejected the application of the petitioners by the impugned order. Heard Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ramachandra Prasad for the first respondent and also Sri Saigangadhar Chamarty for respondents 2 and 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are the original owners of the land covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401 of Jangaon revenue village and though applications are filed by respondents 2 and 3 to call for the records pertaining to the entire survey, which covers the land of the petitioners, they are not even made parties. It is submitted that I.A.No.425 of 2007 is filed for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features, identification, location and measurement of the suit schedule property in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 426 and the said applications are allowed. It is also submitted that the orders passed in the said I.As. though affect the rights of the petitioners they are not even impleaded and such directions were obtained. It is also submitted that as the petitioners are proper and necessary parties having regard to the relief sought in the suit and I.As., the Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioners. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the first respondent and the counsel for respondents 2 and 3 that the suit is for injunction simplicitor with regard to the suit schedule property covered by open plot – B5 covered by Sy.No.401 of Jangaon revenue Mandal in Warangal District; as such the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to come on record. It is submitted that if there is any boundary dispute with regard to the land owned by the petitioners, it is for them to file an independent declaratory suit, but, they cannot come as parties to the suit. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in KOSURU BHASKAR AND ANOTHER v. KOSURU RAMACHANDRAIAH AND OTHERS[1] and also a judgment of a Division Bench in DISTRICT COLLECTOR, R.R.DIST., and AND OTHERS[2]. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has also relied on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in ABDUL GAFUR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS[3]. Whether the applicants in an implead petition are to be allowed to come on record or not is a matter which requires consideration with reference to the facts of each case. While it is true that in the present case the suit is filed for perpetual injunction by the first respondent against respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the suit schedule property, house plot bearing No.B5 admeasuring 200 square yards covered by Sy.No.401 of Jangaon revenue Mandal in Warangal District, but, at the same time, it is the case of the petitioners that the said suit is a collusive suit; and under the guise of various reliefs sought for by way of I.As., respondents are trying to unsettle the survey conducted by Survey authorities. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the original owners of the land covered by Sy.Nos.400 and 401 of Jangaon revenue village. It is their case that they still own the land in the aforesaid survey nos., whereas it is the case of the respondents that petitioners have sold away their plots in the said survey nos., and therefore they do not have interest thereon. But, by way of reply, it is stated by the petitioners that they do still possess the land in the said survey nos., and when there was a dispute with regard to the boundary, at their instance, survey was conducted and boundaries were fixed by conducting panchanama. Although the suit is filed for injunction simplictor, in this case, it is to be noticed that three I.As., were filed by respondents 2 and 3, in I.A.Nos.268 of 2007, 425 of 2007 and 426 of 2007 which were allowed by the Court below. Whereas I.A.No.268 of 2007 is filed to order production of records by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records relating to survey proceedings and I.A.No.425 of 2007 for appointment of a commissioner to note down the physical features, identification, location and measurement of the suit schedule property in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 401, I.A.No.426 of 2007 is filed to direct the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records not to resurvey the suit lands in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 401. Though the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor, it appears, such applications are filed by respondents 2 and 3 and they are allowed. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners pleading that they are affected by such orders carried the matter in revision petitions before this Court and this Court, while dismissing the said revision petitions on the ground that the petitioners are not parties to the suit, permitted them to approach the Court below by filing appropriate applications. It is true that there was no direction to allow impleadment, but, at the stage of impleadment, what is to be noted is whether any rights of the petitioners are being affected by virtue of the orders passed in various I.As., with reference to the suit schedule property. When the suit schedule property is in Sy.No.401, it is not known as to why applications were filed for production of records by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records which pertain to survey Nos.334, 400 and 401. Respondents have filed another application not to resurvey the suit lands in Sy.Nos.334, 400 and 401. When the petitioners are agitating their rights with regard to the land in Survey Nos.400 and 401 and further claim that the suit filed by the first respondent is a collusive suit, it cannot be said that the petitioners are neither proper nor necessary parties. Although it is pleaded by the respondents that petitioners have already sold away all the plots in Sy.Nos.400 and 401, the same is categorically disputed by the petitioners. In any event, having regard to such allegations, the Court below ought not to have rejected the application filed by the petitioners for impleadment. By enlarging the scope of the suit and by filing I.As., for grant of various reliefs on the land, which includes the land of the petitioners also, the petitioners are entitled to come on record as parties in the suit and also the I.As. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 cannot lend any support to the case of the respondents having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As already referred above, whether the applicants in an implead petition are to be allowed to come on record or not is a matter which requires consideration with reference to the relief sought for in the suit and the I.As., and there cannot be a straightjacket formula to consider such I.As. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge, i.e. the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2008 in O.S.No.299 of 2006, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, is set-aside. Civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.142 of 2008 is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 6, 2011 MRR [1] 2006 (1) ALD 35 [2] 2003 (2) ALT 58 (D.B.) [3] (2008) 10 SCC 97