At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
For the Appellant: T.N.M. Ranga Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: -------
1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India at the instance of petitioners/applicants, the challenge is to the order dated 09.07.2018 in I.A.No.322 of 2018 in LGC No.1 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners / applicants under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to implead one Chandrabhatla Patanjali as 4th respondent in the main petition.
2. (A) The petition averments are that the petitioners / applicants have filed LGC No.1 of 2016 seeking declaration of their title in respect of petition schedule property and that the respondents are the land grabbers and other reliefs. The 1st respondent is the company represented by its Directors and the respondents 2 and 3 are the private persons. While so, at the stage of continuation of cross examination of D.W.1, a survey commission was appointed by the Special Court with the consent of both parties. After execution of the warrant, the commissioner filed his report. Then at the stage of further cross examination of D.W.1, his counsel filed a memo seeking closure of evidence of D.W.1. D.W.1 has nowhere mentioned that he was retired as Managing Director, as otherwise it would amount to impersonation. Having participated in the land grabbing, he cannot escape from further proceedings by withdrawing from the cross examination and hence, he shall be impleaded as 4th respondent in the main proceedings.
(b) The respondents opposed the said petition.
(c) The trial Court dismissed the said application on the observation that the petitioners have already added the company represented by its Directors and two other individuals, who allegedly committed the act of land grabbing as party-respondents and now the petitioners propose to add the 4th respondent in his individual capacity. What is the involvement of the company in the act of land grabbing and who shall be held responsible are the matters of trial and, therefore, the 4th respondent cannot be added in his personal capacity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Hence, the C.R.P.
3. Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The point for consideration is:
Whether there are merits in this CRP to allow?
I gave my anxious consideration to the impugned order in I.A.No.322 of 2018. As can be seen from the aforesaid order, it appears that Chandrabhatla Patanjali, who is the representative of the 1st respondent and proposed 4th respondent was examined as R.W.1 and he was partly cross examined. It would appear that at that stage, a memo was filed by his counsel closing his evidence. Natural consequence would be that his evidence would be eschewed and of course, if any points were found from his evidence, which are advantageous to the present petitioners, they may bring it to the notice of the Court for consideration. Be that it may, after his abrupt withdrawal from the evidence, the petitioners/applicants filed a petition in I.A.No.322 of 2018 to implead him in his individual capacity as 4th respondent in the main petition. The reason for his inclusion is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.322 of 2018 is, having participated in the act of land grabbing, R.W.1 cannot escape from his liability. The trial Court observed that the relief was sought against the 1st respondent as a corporate person represented by its Director and not against the representative in his personal capacity. In that view, there was no requirement to add him as party in his individual capacity and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. The proposed party is already on record as representative of 1st respondent company, who is allegedly land grabber. In that view of the matter, his inclusion in his individual capacity is otiose. 7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.