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

Excerpt:
.....laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha..........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.....

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.