Kona Venkata Siva Surya Chandra Sekhar and anr. Vs. Bonda Venkunaidu and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........of 2005 in o.s.no.78 of 2004 on the file of the principal senior civil judge, anakapalle allowing the application purported to have been filed under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure seeking to implead the respondent 1 to 6 herein as defendants 4 to 9 in the main suit.3. it has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the main suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of an immovable property and the proposed parties are in no way connected to the suit agreement and they are third parties thereto, hence they cannot be added as defendants in the main suit.4. considering the submission made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that even though the proposed parties are not connected to the suit agreement, the property in dispute is one and the same. hence, the court below is right in allowing the present application to have proper look in deciding all the issues in respect of the property in question and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. admittedly the other suits are also pending in respect of the same property which can be properly clubbed together with the present suit.....

Judgment:

ORDER

B. Prakash Rao, J.

1. Heard both the sides and at their request, the Revision itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

2. The petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in the Court below, seek to assail the Order 10-7-2006 in I.A. No. 434 of 2005 in O.S.No.78 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle allowing the application purported to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to implead the respondent 1 to 6 herein as defendants 4 to 9 in the main suit.

3. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the main suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of an immovable property and the proposed parties are in no way connected to the suit agreement and they are third parties thereto, hence they cannot be added as defendants in the main suit.

4. Considering the submission made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that even though the proposed parties are not connected to the suit agreement, the property in dispute is one and the same. Hence, the Court below is right in allowing the present application to have proper look in deciding all the issues in respect of the property in question and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Admittedly the other suits are also pending in respect of the same property which can be properly clubbed together with the present suit and disposed of the same by a common judgment to avoid conflicting decisions. Hence, I do not find any merits in the above Revision.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The Court below is directed to club all the suits pending in respect of the same property and dispose of the same by a common judgment.