Gadila Uday Kiran v. '1 . Dr. Seshagiri Rao

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in 0.S. No. 294 Ot 2022 on the file of the 1'' Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum- JFCM at Vikarabad. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SETTY RAVI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BTIASKAR REDDY CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3O4 of 2o25 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.O7.2024, passed in I.A.No.450 of 2024 tn O.S.No.294 of 2022 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabacl District (for short, 'the trial Court')

2. The petitioner herein/ plaintiff has instituted a suit uide O.S.No.294 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Vikarabad, against the defendants seeking for a direction to transfer the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.O.2l gts., in Sy.No.132/er /4, Ac.O.11 gts., in Sy.No. 133/e/4, total admeasuring Ac.0.32 gts., situated at Yenkathaia Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, as patta in his favour. During pendency ofthe suit, the proposed defendant No.3/respondent No. t herein filed I.A.No.45O of 2024 ur-der Order I Rule 1O (2) of CPC seeking to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.294 of 2022. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court allowed the 2 said application uide order dated 25.07 .2024 . Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been hled.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

4. It is contended by respondent No. l/defendant No.3 before the trial Court that he has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 gts., in Sy.No.129/A /5, Ac.O.2B gts., in Sy.No. 129/AA/ 1, through a registered saie deed bearing document No.1892 of 1996, dated 10.1O,1996, Ac.5.29 gts', in Sy.No. 132 and 133, through a registered sale deed bearing document No, 1449 of 1998, dated 25.06.1998, total admeasuring Ac.7 .17 gts., situated at Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District. It is further contended that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed for the said extent of land under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, however, in the e-pattadar passbook, issued under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2O2O, only an extent of Ac.5.33 gts., was mentioned and the remaining extent of Ac.l.24 gts., was deleted. According to him, a duplicate passbook was made in i l I { ."sxwr -t the name of Mrs. Padmamma for an extent of Ac.O.32 gts., and later, she got registered in the name of the plaintiff uide document No.399 of 2019. It is further contended that Mrs. Padmamma has no rights over the said.lalds as her husband along with others, during his lifetime executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.1449 of 1998, dated

25.06.19S8 in favour of defendant No.3. It is further stated the defendant No.3, after coming to know that a suit has been hled by the plaintiff, who purchased the suit land from Mrs. Padmamma, without impleading him as party to the suit, he filed I.A.No.4SO of 2024 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC seeking to implead him as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.294 of 2022 and the trial Court, uide order dated 25.07.2024, has allowed the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has purchased the iand admeasuring Ac.0.21 gts., in Sy.No.132 le:14, Ac.O.11 gts., in Sy.No.133 /es/4, total admeasuring Ac.0.32 gts., srtuated at Yenkathala Village, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, through a registered sale deed bearing document No.399 of 2Ol9 from MrS. Padmamma. It is further stated that after acquiring .-.- 4 'l 1) : ownership rights from the owner, he made several representations to the respondent authorities to mutate his name, but no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner has liled a swit uide O.S.No.294 ol 2022 seeking to mutate his name in respect of the suit land. It is further contended that the petitioner has purchased the said land and respondent No.l is not having any right or title to claim the said property.

6. This Court has carefully examined the order dated

25.07.2024 passed by the trial Court. Since rt is prima facie established that respondent No. t has purchased the property through registered sale deed in Sy.Nos. 132, 133, wherein, the petitioner is also claiming that he is in possession of the very same land, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly allowed the I.A.No.45O of 2024 filed by defendant No.3 seeking to implead him as party to the suit. 7 . Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregrrlarity by the trial Court in allowing I.A.No.450 of 2024 frled by respondent No.1 warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of t]ne Constitution of India. -ia1:6$t!qt:l..:ir 5

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails ar-rd is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds in the pending suit, in accordance with 1aw' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. No order as to costs' SD/-M.NAGAMANI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. SETry RAVI TEJA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GR/PSL ry, HIGH COURT I DATED:0710312025 ORDER CRP.No.304 of 2025 ( \-.L S iq 16- \\l o I 1 25 AUB .D6- * i I I I I i i I I ! ! I I I I i I t I I I i I i I I : I r ! I I I I I I I i i I I I , THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED 1