ITEM NO.3                   COURT NO.8                 SECTION XIIA

             S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                            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.

CORAM :         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 Gopala Rao,Adv.

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                                O R D E R  

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)

O R D E R

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

-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, 2006.

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, allowed.

No order as to costs.

              ....................J.         (A.K.MATHUR)             

                          .....................J.             (AFTAB ALAM)

New Delhi, May 06, 2008