The High Court · 2025

1 Smt. Lakkakula Jayaprada, Wo Ramnarayana' Agedabout 52 years' Occ' o5r3'^t?lt ""' il;lj';ili;'il; c6rr6g" n"li, rviii lii"'ia i iown ino o iiXit; Pamukuntla Hymavathi, W/o Ravinder Reddy' Ag-ed about 46 vears' Occ' House wife, R/o. H.No. +-.iib:i' ahl;;;A;';-P"daapalli rdwn and District. 2

3. Guda Krishna Reddy. S/o Ram Reddy' Ag^ed about 52 vears' Occ Business' R/o. H. N o. 4-2_ 1 34 t 1 o,s;i;i;;; i"d;tre,"peo o apatti T6wn and D istrict. 4 Edumekala Ravi Kumar, S/o' Raiaiah' Aged about,38 vears' Occ' Govt' Employee, Rl/o. H.No s-ii]x'nll'p'rii vilr"gt' I/utn'rim (M) Mandal of FedAa'patti Ol.tti"t. '[iilll-'J:?1[Hali";[,ff"1?[0fl BiSlSEl':3J'ifi il"?33i3&*bEil'Bl:*'' 6. Budarapu Vaishnavi, Wo' Sathish' Aged about'.36 years Occ House Hold' R/o.H.No. 2-84t2, courJddip}: il;dh&;p" virtagd Peddapalli Mandal and 7 District lvlula Anil, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 36 years' Occ.Pvt' Employee' Ri/o H. No. 2- 1 22t2N 1, u"",rr,ti""r7iiiidi Istiri-''o'a Ma nd al' Pedd apa lli District

8. Rachakond Karthik S/o Laxminarayana, Aged about 28 years, Occ. SCCL Emptoyee, Rrc. H. No. 8_4_238 S";trffi il;]6"o[ava r*rrani r >wn, Ramagundan r tVtanda t, peoOapaf fi -fjisiriJtl" .-"" Peddapaili District. Q Poloju Sadananda Clrly, g{o Rajamouti, Aged about4gvea-s. Occ. "ni,,"r'oXi" Tea ch er, R/o H No 6_e6 : Thad icri;;i; Viit;s"", M;riii n"" J Jayashankar r3hoopalapaili Oistrici. - - " srv! '!'I, '10.Geeda Prasurnathi, Wo.^V_enkat Reddy, Aged about 44years Occ. Govt. Emptoyee, R/, H. No. z_zz, Kuiar: ii nirrr'6", rii[;iririi,p, i n,,iiiri",. 1 'l . Nuqilla SindhL . D/o Mallaiah, Wo Thirupathi, Ased 25 yrs O,;c. House wife. '12. Kolluri Lasumzriah. S/o. V_enkaiah, Aged 63 years, Rio. H No 2-1.2sr. erasalhinas;i plrioli'rii;?8wn and Distri:t H No. 4_3-216'^6/N1tA, Bdm;;s;#,"j0,#iii rown and D strict 13. Batlapenumarthv Subrahmanyam, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 37 y,-,ars, Occ. Rro ri.No t_qiriii{ Cai{aiiJiiV;ri;s" peddapa ri Mandar and 14.Mamidi Shireer;h Kumar,.S/o. Srinivas, Aged 27 Vears, Occ. Br,siness. R/o_ ., ". ;rj iK.,om I n d i an o ii C;; p,' R r,, ;ii p,rir i v,. i r, C iu iiffi i i' Rtd. E nployee, R/o. Bllil.i.:.' j'l?,? -Occ.

15. Polam Srinivas S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 31 years. Occ. pvt. Emplo;ee, R/o. H.No 2-53. Appan napet Viilage, p"loiparri rrtlliiu'i rii'oi.tri"r

16. Bandari Jyothi, Wo. Raj {qm1, Aged 47 years, Occ. Househo d, R/o. e_ No_ D 8.1 3 7 rr a ga ia hsl do J, R ;;"r;; r;rri ;i]irt uy xo*, rs, o" rr Ma nda I a nd

17. Nugilla Mallesh,rrari. Wio..Mallaiah,Aged 47 years, Occ. House.rold, R/o. H. No. 2_ 1 _29 1, pragathinagai.' i""Oo"drril iii" and Districl . l8.Anthadupula Sarcia. D/o. Rajaiah, Aged 42years, Occ. Govt. E nplovee. R/o _hnagar. Kyathanapelii vittage, Ivlandamil;it\4';il;i.," No.13-64, Bhao athsino Mancheriat DisTri,:t ;,: fh E[? fiL"", j iT:"; fJ[?,:lr '19. Muniganti Ravindra Chary. S/o. Narasimha Swamv, Aged 47 Ve lrs, Occ. rrri; I,L sili,lt ],c "i:;; iv # J ivl i!!., 20.Budarapu Sathistr. Sb g111,3h,$ged 43_years, Occ. Business R/o. H.No.2_ 84/2. Goureddip,rra. Raghavapui vr"rig",-pL"dta'paiti vtanoat anc Drstrict. 21 .Polam Sathish. tilo. Ivtallaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ. pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 22.V arukolu Suiatha. Wo Srinivas, Guardian of Varukolu Niharika, J/o. Srinivas. d" ( rcc studen i. Ri, Fin;.i_# J,i"ni! r,n,srr.. pec da pa li rown 2-53. Appa n n a pet Vi lase, pujaoi pi rii"rrrllrl Ji in? rj rstrict Xff B,,.?ffi ,,xiJi,lii,:?'.9T'li:,,:,5f, iii:[1fi?x,?,?lif,Ti3,::,33[,:,ilifJ,?8r 24. Bobbili Kavitha. f'/o Raisrneuli, Aged 4.1 years, Occ. Govt. Emplovee R/o.H.No.2-3-.12€. Bharitnnagar, peddapalli Town and District

25. Kanaparthi Anil, S/o. Prabhakar, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4- 263/7, Bapujinagar, Raghavapur village, Peddapalli Mandal and District.

26. Edumekala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/0. H.No.5-11, Khazipalli Village, Mutharam (M) Mandal, Peddapalli District.

27. Elabotharam Priyanka, Wo. Naresh, Aged 27 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No.6-97, Elkalapally Gate, Palakurthi Mandal, Peddapalli District.

28. Kanaparthi Jyothi, Wo. Anil, Aged 33 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o. H.No.4- 263t7, Bapujinagar, Raghavapur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District.

29. Bandi Ramya Krishna, Wo. Bandi Anil, Aged 29 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o. 290/1, Pragathinagar, Peddapalli Town and District.

30. Nugilla Malleshwari, Wo. Mallaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ. Household, R/o-.H.No. 2-1-291, Pragathinagar, Peddapalli Town and District.

31. Municipal Commissioner, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District. ...RESPONDENTS/ Proposed respondents 2 to 31 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ; the affidavit filed i6 support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 59 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapalli, Peddapalli District, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER: HON'B],E SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CML REVISION PETITION No.279 of 2025 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed under. Artick:. 227 of the Constitution of ndia aggrieved by the order, dated 25.O4.2024, passed in t.A.Nr.408 of 2023 in I.A.No.196 of 2022 rn O.S No.59 of 2022 on tLLc file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum Jr rdicial Magistrate of F irst Class at Peddapally, wherein the applr cation fiied under Or<[t:r I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to implead the pr< posed parties as resp()ndent Nos.2 to 31 in the I.A. and the suil, was dismissed.

2. Brief factt of the case are that the petitioners, rvho z re the plaintiffs, I'rave f .led a suit for declaration of title ancl reco.ery of possession, rectification of entries in the revenue records and also cancellatior of the earlier passbook and title deed iss red tn the name of on,: Lakkakula Jayaprada. It is further state.l that along with the r;.rit, the petitioners also filed I.A.No..196 ot 2022 seeking to glant ad inteim injunction restraininl; the respondent anc her family members, agents and servan.s etc. from alienating the suit schedule property and the trial Court has granted aa!. inteim injunction. It is further stater I that during pendencl of the suit, respondent No.1 hacl illegall,i sold 2 .* r?rlbj the suit schedule property to the proposed respondents and executed registered sale deeds in their favour. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4 Oa of 2023 seeking to implead the proposed parties, who purchased the suit scfredule property, as party respondentNos.2 to 31 in the I.A. and the suit. After considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 had illegally Sold out the suit schedule property to the proposed respondents, where as the case of the respondents is that the land claimed by the petitioners is in Sy.No.898/3/4 whereas the boundaries shown by them belong to the land of respondent No. 1 which is situated in Sy.Nos.898 /l and 898/2. Further, it is seen from the impugned order that the suit was filed in the year 2022, whereas according to the petitioners, the documents alleged to have executed are of the year 2021, which are prior to the institution of the suit for declaration and as per the frndings recorded by the trial Court the proposed respondents are in possession of the property by virtue of sale deed. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioners have not made out any case, as they have not sought for cancellation of sale deed. In the absence of 3 .*,!X"rli the relief souglht for cancellation of the sale deeds exe c uted in favour ol tht proposed respondents and non-filing of any documenl to shou, that the suit schedule property hz s been purchased b,v the proposed parties, this Court is of Lhe vi:rv that the impugned order does not require any interference of this Court as ther3 is no illegality or irregularity in the im cugned ordcr.

4. Accordinl3ly, the Civil Revision Petition is clis nissed There shall be Ito order as to costs

5. As a serl-rel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand clc sed Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMB A //TRUE COPYtt i\ss IFTAI\IT REGISTRAR JSECTION OFFICER v The Junior Civil Judoe _cum_.Judicial Magistrate of First (.)lass at Peddapalli, peddapaTli Disrnct. One CC to SRt. VADLAKONDA RAV! KUMAR REDDY, Adrrocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies I To 1 2 3 kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:311O112O25 ORDER : GRP.No.279 ol 2025 / a. J rJ SI4I E "( r. o ( C o^ \ 1: ?2 A,R 2025 * !{.3p,,r6,,'r DISMISSING THE CIV I, RLVISION PETI'I'ION WITHOUT COSTS / /,e / 7,1szt5