The High Court · 2025

,,.RESPONDENTS/ Defendants 1 and Z / proposed parties lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the_affidavit filed in support of petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os. No. 329 of 2019, on th. fil" of the Learned vl Addl. District and sessions Judge cum Famiry court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally- -th_e Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondents: - CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 454 OF 2025 Petition Under Afticre 222 of constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order passed in tA.No. 1078 of 2023 in l.A.No. 1642 0f 2019 in o.s tto, sis or zols, dated 4-11-2024 on the file of the court of the Vl Additional district and sessions Judge cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Between: Mohd Bin salam, s/o Late Saram Bin Ahmed Aged about 52 years, occ- Business . Banjara riirr. riyJ"-oal- ""- R/o H.No B-2-332t1r8, rVlega city No 164, Road "No AND .1 Pochamma @Pushpamma !V/o^K legra swamy D/o Late J. Malliah , Aged about 64 Occ- House hold , R/o 8-4, Lakdapa . Eeda pasha waitaram, tvtLait Diskict 502307. ...PETITIONER

2. B. Susheela, Wo Bantu Pochiah, D/o late J_ Mallaiah, Aged about 6g years Occ - Household, R/o 1-8-1, Sangareddy , Chidrupa, Med'ak Diskict. 3, Sri K.V Ramababu. s/o K GopalKrishniah aged about 40 years, Occ_ Business R/o Btock No 23, Hot No 7 , tvflG -It , Aagn Lingjmpatiy, Hyderabad

4. Smt K, Sita Mahalaxmi, w/o K V Rambabu aged about 33 years , Occ_ Business R/o Btock No 23, Flot No 7 , MIG -t'i, eagn Lingjmpally, Hyderabad 5, Smt Y . Renuka Lakshmi, w/o Y. Suresh Babu age about 30 yrs, rlo 2- 1261111, Engineer Enclave, Chandanagar, Hydeiabad. 6 ? Y V,iqV Kumar, S/o Y, Radha Krishniah, age 61 years, R/o Flat No 203 Aditya Apartments, Durganagar colony , pari.lagunita. Hyderabad .

7. P.V Sai Prasanna. Wio K. Muralidher, Age 3g years, Occ_ Service, plot No 283 HUDA Colony Chandangar Hyderabid_ 8- Ravi Vasanta Kumar, s/o late Ravi Venkata Krishnaiah , age 61 years Occ Business, R/o TBI Subodhya Apartments , fiIuncipal Emgrloyees colony, Vijaywada. 9 Nalabolu Venkateshwarlu, s/o N. Pullaiah, age about 34 years, Occ- Busaness, R/o Quarter A-12 Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 329 of 2019, on the file of the Learned Vl Addt District and Sessions Judge Cum Family Court, Ranga Ranga Distrtct at Kukatpally Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following ORDER: .I'HE HONOURAI}I,E SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Peti tion Nos.433 & 454 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: 'fhese are two Civil Revision petitions have been filed by the petitioncrs under arlicle 227 of the constitution of India assailing the olders datcd 04.11.2024 passed in I.A.Nos. 1077 & tOTg of 2023 in O.S.No.i29 of 20 l9 by the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge- cLrm-Fanrily Courl. Ranga Rcddy District at Kukatpally.

2. I lcard Mr.Mohamrned Adnan, learned counsel lbr the petitioncls. Peluscd the rnaterial available on record.

3. '['hc impugncd order in both these civil revision petitions bcinu passcd on the same day. I'he parties to tl.re dispr-rte also bcing thc same, the plaintiff in these two civil revision pctitions is also Ihc samc, t-he two civil revision petitions havc becn l.rroceedcd ro be decidcd analogously by a common order b1, this Co lr rt.

4. I-he trvo civil revision petitions have been filed assailing the ordcrs dated 04. 11.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.l011 & l07U of 202 3 in O.S.No.329 of 201 9. 2 5 The order passed in I.A.No.1077 of 2023 is what is under challenge in C.R.No.433 of 2025, whereby thc r.rial courl had rejected the plaintifls petition flled under Order I Rule l0 of the Code of CiviI Procedure (1or short 'C.P.C') sr:eking for the impleadment ol'the proposed respondents as the dc[endants. 6 Likewise, the order passed in I.A.No.1078 of 2023 is the order which is under challcnsc in C.R.P.No 154 of 2025, whereby, thc trial coutt had rc.icctcd rhc said I.,\. filed by the petitioner/plainti[f unclcr Ordcr I ltulc l0 ol rhc (].p.C. secking for impleadnrent olthc proposcd respoudents in thc pending I.A. i.c., l.A.No. l(>42of 2019 pendirrc. in the said suit.

7. Vicie tlte trvo [ .As., thc petitioners lraci s ought for the impleadment of the proposed rcspondents who is said to have purchased parts of thc suit schcdule propelty br different sale deeds, those uerc rcgistclcd in bctrvccn the year 2004 to 2006 The proposed respondcnts are the purchasers ol thc suit schedule property much before or rather long betbre the suit itself was filed i.e., in thc year 20 19. uhereas, the sales ri:re done than 10 years lrack 3

8. The instant suit i.e., O.S.No.329 of 2019 is one which has becn filed seeking lor specific performance of an agreement dated 12.09.2014 against the defendant Nos.l & 2 in respect of alleged undivided share of propcrty. l-he suit was based upon the alleged agrcement lbr salc that was executed on 12.09.2014 between the pctitioner plaintiff'and the defendant Nos.l & 2 in tlre suit.'l'he suit was filed as early as in the year2019. 9 What is necessary to be appreciated at this juncture is that the respondent earlicr had fited a suit for partition and separate posscssior-t on thc tlle ol' thc XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Redd1,[)istrict, L.l].Nagar, vide O.S.No.l90 of 2015. In the said suit, tlre peritione r/plaintitf himself had filed an impleacl petition sceking himself to be impleaded as necessary party However, u'hcn the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant suit lor specific perlormance, for reasons best known, when the sr-rit rvas I rled irr thc ycar 20 19, rhe petitioner did not think it proper to implead them as a rlccessary party. Finalty, the I.A. stood rc'jected by the impLrgucd order under challenge in civil revisiou pet rt I on 4 t0. The contention of the petitioner IS that the proposed respondents arc very much necessary for the elfeclive disposal ol the suit filed by the plaintiff cr else t.here .,vould be further complications that would be created and thcre u,r.,u[fl bs further multiplicity of litigation ll. It was also thc contention o1' the petitioner that the necessity to implead this purchascrs as proposed respoudents is also necessary in order to ensure that thcre is no Iurther darnagc caused from any fulther al ienalion that is macle by tl.re said proposed respondents in rcspect of thc suit sch,,.clule l)roperty over which thev are claimine thcntsel,ues to be rltc or,",ncrs by virtue of registercci saic cieeds cxccuteci in tircir ibr our

12. Learned cour.rscl lbr the petitioucr relicd r-rpon Lhc rccent decision of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the case of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prahhokar. I3. What is necessary at this -iuucturc to bc tallcn note is the nature of suit that the petitioner/plaintiff has liled Adrrittedty, it is a suit for specific pcr{brurarrce of thc so callerl aercc-rnent of sale dated 12.09.2014.'l'he proposed rcspondcnt,. are no rvhcre 5 connected to thc said agreement for sale in as much as they are not party to that agreement of sale. 14. In the given circumstances, the suit for specific performance o[ the agreement for sale can only be susbtantiable against the pa(ies to have entcred into an agreement of sale' lt carlnot be enlbrccd or invoked against the parties who are not signatories to the agreerrent directly or indirectly'

15. Thereforc, the question is rvould the proposed respondents be neccssarv to be irnpleaded in a suit for specific performance' llthe irnplead petitions are allorved and the proposed respondents arc made as necessal'\ pxrties ancl they enter appearance before thc court, rvhcre the o['rrious stand of theirs would be that they have got nothirtg to do rvith the alleged agreement for sale and that they have come into possession of part of the suit schedule property by rvay of a separatc registered sale deeds executed more thatr 10-15 years back. [n the event of such a natural def'er.rcc that tlrc prol-rtlsed rcspondcnts would take, the only altelnate that thc petit ionc'ri p la intil{- would have is to amend the 6 rclief clause itself and wl.ricrr would crrange the r :^.. rrature .f- the suit itself other than a suit for specific perfbrrn:inr.e. 16. ln vieu' of the aforesaid factual matrix .l.tlie case, iire irial courf after corrsidering the pros and cons of thc implead pctition has decided to reject the implead petition. 17. In the factual matrix ol.the case, rhe said or.dcr.passed bv the trail coun olt 04.1 1.2024 cannot be said to trc Lr.rr.casonablc or corltraly to law. T'he irnplead pctitiotl ,ta',()[ hc ,cccssar.r., to Lrc allowed in thc preserlt case considering tlre sirLrst..tive rcricl. which the plaintiff sought for.i.e. for thc spccilic pcrlbrrnance o1. the agreement for sale and thc proposed respondL_nts not beirto a signatory tc the agreentent. 18. Hence. the findings so givc, by tlre trial c.-rrt ca,uot :rls<r bc said to be either pcrverse or bad in law . l: r,cr- thc .!Lrdgrrrcnt rclied upon by the learned counsel lbr. the petitior.cr also cannof be applied in a straight jacket [o',ula, co.sidcr.i.u thc. lhcr that t'c suit herein is the suit lbr specilic pcrfbrma,cc.t c.^tract a,cr t,e situation wourd had been differe,t if t,c suit *ourcr r,rad bccn a suit for partition or 1br that ntatter a suit fbr declar aliorr. 7

19. Hence, lor the reasorls, this court is of the considered opinion that the two civil revision petitions filed by the petitioneriplaintiff being devoid of tnerits so far as invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 where the scope of intert-erence to an order of the trial court is too minimal and the petitioners having not rr.r ade out any strong case so as to interdict the impugned order w'ithin the timits of the supervisory j uriscliction over thc trial cotrrts u'ithin its territories and j urisdiction. 20. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are rejected' No order as to costs. As a sequel, misccllancotrs applications pending if any' shall stand closed. I I To ,,TRUE COPY" sP.l;#*% TSMAIL ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ilvc'u*Ransa 'H?vJal'1*'P,:1PJ?:'n*^,:il:.::":',:fi 2. One CC to SRI MOHAI 3. Two CD CoPies kuV HIGH COURT DATED: 1 3/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.433 and 454 of 2025 1HE Srn

16. i(( )R I I JUt{ M (n',t' D C) o o )_ '',, \i_ -;a/ I{l..ll:(' I-l\( i I IIl. Il( ) I Il ( Mt. ttIlVISION PETIITONS ,{ \do0 W