Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order..
(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Vijay Dhawan)
Court Master Court Master (Signed Order is placed on the file)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3349 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.13979 of 2006)
M. VENKATA RAJU Appellant(s)
Versus
TEEGALA ANNAPURNA & ANR. Respondent(s)
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge of the A.P. High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in a writ
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the
Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has permitted to implead the Vigneswara
Swami Vari Temple as a co-plaintiff.
Few facts which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this
appeal are that a suit was filed by M. Venkata Raju against Teegala Annapurna
for the arrears of rent and in these proceedings an application was made by
the defendant, Teegala Annapurna for being impleaded the Vigneswara Swami
Vari Temple as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and the application
was allowed. That order was challenged before the High Court and the High
Court set aside that order and remitted back the matter to the Trial court. The
Trial Court again by order dated 31st August, 2004 allowed the application of the
defendant in the suit and permitted the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple being
impleaded as a co-plaintiff on the ground that the property in question belongs to
the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple. In some suits filed by the Temple against M.
Venkata Raju (appellant herein) claiming that Temple is the owner of the suit
properties and not M. Venkata Raju. However, the suit was dismissed but an
observation was made that the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple is the owner of the
property. Be that as it may, the Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple was made co-
plaintiff by the impugned order. This order was challenged by M. Venkata Raju
by filing a Writ Petition under Article 227. That was confirmed by the High
Court by Order dated 2nd February, 2006.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge the
present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
It is very strange that a suit has been filed by M. Venkata Raju and
the order has been passed by impleading Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple as a co-
plaintiff. On the face of it, it appears to us to be improper under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC. In order to do justice the parties can be impleaded for doing the complete
justice but in the present case, the impleading Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple is
a co-plaintiff along with M. Venkata Raju who has filed a suit for recovery of
arrears of rent appears to us to be absolutely unsustainable.
Consequently, we set aside the order passed by the Trial Court as
well as the order passed by the High Court and allow this appeal.
However, before parting with the case it may not be understood to
mean that the application for impleading Vigneswara Swami Vari Temple as a
party defendant is declined. It will be open for the Vigneswara Swami Vari
Temple to make an application before the Trial Court for impleading Temple as
part defendant and the Trial Court is free to pass the order in accordance with
law.
This appeal is accordingly, allowed.
No order as to costs.
New Delhi, May 06, 2008