Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. – impleading petition by third parties – since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable – as the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit.- Court dismissed their petition.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/order-i-rule-102-and-section-151-of-cpc.html

“It is relevant to note here that the present suit in O.S.No.131/2015 is filed by the plaintiffs not basing on any oral lease, but basing on the registered lease deed, dated 05.03.2012 executed by the plaintiffs herein and the defendant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property. The said registered lease agreement, dated 05.03.2012 was also marked as Ex.A2 in the present suit by the plaintiffs herein. The said circumstances support the contention of the plaintiffs herein that the defendants herein with an intention to protract the present case got filed the present petition through her relatives who are the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties. Moreover, since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable. Considering the said circumstances, the copy of plaint in O.S.NO.192/2017, copy of FIR in Cr.No.197/2017 and legal notice concerned in O.S.192/2017 etc., filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties along with the present petition are also no way helpful to them to substantiate their submission. In the said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit. Considering the same, the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (1) in Racharla Thirupathi and others V/s Gundala Shobha Rani and others (reported in 2013(5) ALT 209) that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; so also (2) in Jahangirji and others V/s K.Kumar (reported in 2012(4) ALT 253) the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit cannot be cured by impleading them in the appeal and is fatal to the suit; and (3) in Taddi Chinnayya, S/o late Narasayya and others V/s Tekumalla Purushottam Rao S/o late Ramarao and others (reported in 2015(4) ALT 476) that a necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable in the suit without whom no effective order can be passed, which are relied by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties, are of no avail to them in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court find no merits in the petition to implead the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties as parties to the present suit in O.S.NO.131/2015; accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are ordered to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the MLSC, Chirala and to pay costs of Rs.500/- to the other side.”