Maheswarapu Srinivas Sarma, S/o v. Acharyulu, Aged about

AND 1. Smt.Uradi Anjarnma, W/o late Gangaial-r, z\ged about 55 years, Occ. House wife. R/o Cherlaguda village, Sangareddy Mandai, Medak District.

2. Smt.Uradi Padmavathi @ Manne Shushrnitha, W/o Satyanarayana, D/o late U.Gangaiah, Ag-"9 1b9{ 26 ycars, Occ, Pvr. Teacher, R/o Chekryal village, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District. Lt i,Y,ff:A::.tru::/ Pla intirrs'

3. Ura dj. B iksha p a th i, s/ o r a te G ar.r ga i a r-r, R/o Shankerpally village and Manclal, Ranga Redcly District. ^r"tTff

4. Smt.Uradi?apamma, W/o Narsimhulu, Agcd about 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, _ I/o M,ahalingapuram village, Shankerpatty Mandal, Ranga Reddy DiJtrict. 5. Smt. L{anne Aanusuja, W/o Ramulu, Agcd alrout 50 yeari, Occ. Agriculture, _ \1q $o"9qkal village, Shankerpally lVfandal, t{anga Reddy Districl 6. Chikkiri Bikshpathi Yadav, S/o China Mallaiah, ,Aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o I{.No.1-96/4, Kokapet village, Rajendra Nagai Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. D.Sathaiah Yadav, S/o Gangaiah, Agecl about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o ^ H.No.2-43, Kokapct villagc, Rajendri Nagar Nlandal, Ranga RJddy Dlstrict. B. Smt.Surpur_eddy Nagarnari, W / o S.S.R.K.V.V.S.Chalapat[i Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.No.1-1102- 180, Sandipudi village, A1amuru Mandal, East Godavari District. (R3 to RB are Not Necessary parties in this CRP) . -. Resprondents/ Respondents/ Defendants. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Vasantha Ra1,udu. Counsel for the Respouclent Nos.1 & 2: Sri B.Bal lteclcly. CllP No.321 of 2025 , Civil Revision filcd under Article 227 of the Constitutiol-r of India, assailing the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.893 of 2024 in O.S.No.B7 of 2016 on the file of the Senior CiviiJudge at Chavella, Ranga Reddy District' Between: Aged. about 55 years, Occ' Maheswarapu Srinivas Sarma, S/o V.Acharyulu, , Business, R/o H.No.B-3 -988/8, Flat No.402, Sai Kiran Apts', Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/ Pe titioner/ Proposed Defendant No'9. AND 1. Smt.Uradi Anjamrna, W/o late Gangaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ' House wife. R/o Cherlaguda village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District'

2. Smt.Uradi Padmivathi @ Manne Shushmitha, W/o Satyanarayana. D/o late U.Gangaiah, Agerl about 26 yeats, Occ- Pvt. Teacher, R/o Chekryal village, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District. .. Responclents/ Res pondents/ Plaintiffs.

3. Uradi Bikshapathi. S/o late Gangaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ' Agriculture, R/o Shankerpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' 4 Smt. Uradi Pipamm u,lnl 1o Narsimhulu, Aged about55 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Mahalingapuram village, Shankerpally iVIandal, Ranga Reddy District' 5. Smt. Manne Aanusuja, W/o Ramulu, Aged alrout 50 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Kondakal village, Shankerpally Mandal, Rarrga Rcddy District'

6. Chikkiri Bikshpathi Ya dav,S / o China Mallaiah,,Aged about'11 rygrs,.O5c' Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-96/4, Kokapet village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. D.Sat"haiah Yadav, S/o Gangaiah, Aged about {6 vears, Occ. ,\ericulture, R/o H.No.2-43, Kokapet village,Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Iieddy District' 8. Smt.Surpureddy^Nagamini, W,i o S'S'R'K'V-V S'Chalapathi.llao' Aged about 62 years, Oic. House wife, R/o H.No.1-1102-180, Sandipudi viltagc, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. (R3 to R8 are Not Necessary Parties in this CI{P) ... Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants. IA NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under- section 151 CPC praying that in the circrtmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couri may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.B7 of 2076, on the file oI Senior Civil Judge. Chevella, Ranga Recldy District. I 'i Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Vasantha Ra1'udu Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri B.Bal Reclc{y 'fhe Court made tl're follon,ing: COMMON ORDEIT i I l THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE P. SAI1 KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3l8 & 311 o12025 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions have been tiled br,- the petitioners under article 227 of the Constitution ol India assailing the orders dated 31 .12.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.89-l & 89,1 of 2A24 in O.S.No.87 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge. l{algr i{crid1 DisLrict at Chevella.

2. Heard Mr.G.Vasantha Rayudu, lealriLil {i}lt!.lel lir' the petitioner. Perused the material availablc on rcc( jr (1

3. Vide the impugned order. the petition lrluti i)\ iirr prtiiioner seeking impleadment as dclcndant No.9 in tht' suit :ianJs rcjectcd, leading to the filing olthc instant cir iI revision l.ititions

4. The plaintiff had fited a suit for l:r,1iLir:l r,rri scp.irrtc possession against the del'endant t.,Nus.l to 8. li,; :,r.rjt i\'iis {lled as early as in the year 2016. 'fhe C,efendant No-2 :'r l; i1151' ji.' cl' prr.rper service and even after papcr publication also chr:su ll{rt ii-} contest lht: case and therefore, were proceed exparte. Onli dsltr:dan{ No.l was contesting the matter. The written statemcnt ri ri: lilcri br deiendant No.1 on 19.09.2022. The evidcnce rvere all closcd unci lhe matter now stands fixed for the final arguments in thc suit. .i ,. r,r i]ris :;tagc iirat- \ 2 the petirion under Order I Rule 10 has been filed seeking for impleadment as necessary parry defendant No.9 as the petitioner is a subsequcnt purchaser of the suit schedule property having purchased the propcril fiom defendant No.6 who has been proceeded exparte. -5. I'hc c(rntL'nlion of the petitioner was that defendant No.6 is the vendor of thr petiLior-rer and defendant No.6 in tum had purchased the prop.()' ironr detbndant Nos.4 & 5. Defendant No.6 had purchased the plopcrlr' lronr defendant Nos.4 & 5 in thc year 2005. This pendcric., or'rirr: srrit was not brought to the notice of the petitioner herein neirhtl rvas he aware of the said case pending at any point of time anrl it is only recently when the petitioner had gone to the revenlr. arrthotities for getting his name entered in thc revenue records and there hc *'as informed that the property is one which was under litigation irn(i thcre is an order of status quo passed by the civil court and it is ,)nl\ thcreafter that the petitioner filed the petition under Order I Rr:lL: 10 seeking for impleadment as defendant No.9.

6. Actording to the petitioner there has been certain facts which thc pctitioner intcnds to bring to the knowledge of the trial court uhich n'ill g.r r<i show that the petitioner was not at any point of time au are oi' irendirrg dispute in the civil court. t& addition. the petitioner ais,.r suirirt rt: ihiit :ince it is a suit for ition and sepamte possession l even if it is decreed the appearance of the petitionclur ould onll help to the extent of protecting his property, evcn rvhile thc suit schedule property is partitioned in favour of the plainti[ls. Iior all this. the trial court could not have rejected the same.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 29.01.2021 in the case oi H.A nj a n appa V A. Prah h akart .

8. Upon hearing the counsel appearing tin eithcr -sidc and on perusal of record, admittedly, a suit was tiled b1 thc plaintili' way back in the ye,u 2O16. There is also an ordcr oliniunctiorr so l'nr as the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respcct ttl thc srrit schulule property. Except for defendant No.l, all other deilnctartts chosc not to cOntest the Case and the trial court had no othcr l.!pii()lt. bili L() pl'i)cced exparte against them. Though the suit was tlled in thc lear 2()16. the petitioner herein has purchased the said propefl)'on!r in thc vcar f 0l9 from defendant No.6. From 2019 till 2023-2024. lhere docs not secm I to be any effofis made by the petitioner to get his nentc entcrcd itr the revenue records which could had help hint ttr ktrttrr eix)ul the injunction order of status quo passed by thc trial eoufl- -so also the subject property being under litigation. Thcrc aislr tlor"s t':tii 'ilrulr lo he I I ! Civit Appeal Nos.l180-l l8l o12025 \ ||4:I anv docunrcrli to show that as to whether the petitioncr had taken necessan, carc and precaution to ascertain whether the subject proprn\ rr hici: lrc intends to purchase is under litigation an)"where or n()l in i;ii,li:ii';r t{ ' all these facts, what is also apparently evident is thai ,.r1 ih,' inal having becn concluded, the evidence ol both the frart.ics llr)\ inu alltacly been closed and the suit being lrxcd lor final ltruulrlcllt\

9. l:i'r :!l rlr.r .,lirresaid reasons, this Court does not tind any crror i;r ttrc rrr,j.. r ,Jr)5icri by the trial court while rejecting the same at this hclatcd :1rqc i tlrc suit. Nonetheless, the rejection of thc pctition lbr iir:1-.llatlr,rr t, ir\ litc trial court or for that matter the reiection of thc crril rcrrs oc irctrtion by this court today would not preclude the pctitioritr ltonr trrking appropriate recourse availablc to him alicr cr;nc itrs ron oi ihc tria[- l(1. lhus. tiresc civil revision petitions stands rejected r\s r ,-c 1r-r.:1 rrr i:icellaneous applications pending if anv. shall stand Sd/ L. VIIAYA LAXMI / ASSiSI'ANf RECISTRAR / At_ I.,CTION OFFICUR //'IRUECOP\// "fo,

1. The Senior C'ivil Juclge at Chavella' Ranga Reddy f)isu*ict 2, Onc CC to Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu' Advocate,[OPUC] 3. dl; CC to Sr r Il Bat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Cio;-ries JCK/DI r+ HIGiJ COURI' DATED:07 /02/207-t COMMON ORDITIi CRP Nos.318 & 32 | of lU25 Rejecting the C.R.l's \vithout costs (o-ffir I /.' -,) ,) 1 l-tE S IA, ( 01 r'4AY 2[25 7- a .+ CF ,S PAT