M. Venkata Raju Vs. Teegala Annapurna & ANR.  INSC 817 (6 May 2008)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13979/2006
(From the judgement and order dated 02/02/2006 in CRP No. 6313/2004 of The HIGH
COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD) M. VENKATA RAJU Petitioner(s) VERSUS TEEGALA
ANNAPURNA & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for permission to file
additional documents and prayer for interim relief and office report )) Date:
06/05/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Adv.
Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Rao N., Adv.
Ms. Roshmani, Adv.
Mr. Aribam Guneshwar Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Y. Raja
Mr. Y. Ramesh, Adv.
Ms. Y. Vismai, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv.
Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Adv.
Mrs. Sudha Gupta ,Adv UPON hearing
counsel the Court made the following ORDER 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) IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA 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) ORDER We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.
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 -2- 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,
Aggrieved against the order passed
by the learned Single Judge the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
-3- 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.
-4- This appeal is accordingly,
No order as to costs.