The High Court · 2025

Boinpally Srikar, S/o. Manohar Ratt, age about 25 years, Occ R/o.H.No. 1-2-593159, Flat No 303, Lotus Gaghn Vihar Domalguda, Hyderabad. Business, Apartment,

9. Boinpally 9rlal!?, _VI/o Jnlanohar Rao, aged about 49 years, Occ. house wife, - Lotus Gag'an Vitrar epirtment, R/o.H.No.1-2-593/59, .Flat No. 303, Domalguda, Hyderabad. 10 Dhannapuneni. Jyothsna, wo. Ravi kumar, aged about 52 years. occ. House wife, R/o. Ptot No. 503, padmavathinagar, kniirataOaO, HyrieraOaO. -- ''" 1'l.Gandra Sudheer Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 61 Vears. Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No. 1-2, Rro. sakhapur (v) Verg5toor tVlandar, kiiimnagu, District. I 12 Smt Gandra. oranaya, Wo. Sudheer Rao, aqed about 55 years, Occ. House wife R/o H No 1.2 Shakhapur (v) VetgatooiManaar. Xiii.inig;r-Oi-iJri"il' 13.shaik Mahaboob pasha, s/o. Shaik Khasim saheb, aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7-4-397,Kashmirgadda, XarininaqJr. --

14.f .ahera B_eS{l Wo. Shaik Mahaboob pasha, aged about 50 vears. Occ. House wrfe, R/o H.No. 7 4-397 Kashmirgadda, Xari"mnagir. -

15.9aba Fathima, Wlo _Vqf!.- Aleemullah, aged about 24 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o H No. 12-2_A23tct6g, SBt iotoiy, lrlefrJ,pitnam]Hla"eiraiaO. 16 Khalid Bin_Sayeed ilg .gqygg4 Bin Mubarak, age abour 34 years, Occ Business, R/o. H No. Z-1-1g9: Mukrampura, Karrmnagar. lT chennadi Varaprasad Rao, s/o. chennai srinivas Rao, aged about 52 years, Fortune fow6is, SnifrliOfriirr, ...Respondentsnesponiensio"i.iilfit" occ_ Business, R/o Flat No. 1501, ,A,Block, Hyderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section l s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srpport of the petition, the-High court may be pleased to jiant ltay of all further proceedings in o.s No. 51 of 2b14 on the fite of the court of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, pending aisposat- ot the above Revision petitron lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: '1. sardar Avatar singh S/o.Late sardar rnder sinoh, aged about 61 year, occ Business R/o.H No 2-6-99, sikhwadi, Karimnagir, Ka"rimnagai'DistiiJt. ' """ 2. sardar sajjan srngh, s/o.Late sardar rnder sinqh, occ.Business, R/o.H.No.2- 6-99, Sikhwadi Karinrnagar District.

3. Sardar Kulwanth Sinoh, S/o.Late Sardar lnder Singh, aged about 43 year, occ Busrness, R/o H-No 2-6-9s, siklrwadr. iilirmiagir, xirimnis;oi.t,ic'tl" 4. sardar charanpar singh, _s/o.Late sardar rnder singh, aged about 34 vear. Occ Business. R/o H No 2-6_99, Sikhwadi, k;rir;rg;;; firi-,i,"?g* dlti"T',

5. Mohammad Mus.raq Hussain, (Died) Mohd Liaqath Ali died 6. Mohd. Liaqath Ati (died) a / I

7. Dhannavoneni Ravi Kumar, S/o.Mohan Rao, Agriculture, R/o. H No. 6-3-800/2/8. Plot Khairatabad, Hyderabad. aged about 48 years, Occ. No. 503, Padmavathinagar, B Boinpally S1kgr. S/q. Manohar Rao, age about 25 years, Occ R/o.H.No.. 1-2-593/59, Ftat No. 303, Lotus Gagbn Vihar Domalguda, Hyderabad. Business, Apartment, 9 Boinpally !rj]a]!q, ttlo l\4anohar Rao, aged about 49 years, Occ. house wife, R/o.H No.'1-2-593/59, .Flat No. 303, - Lotus Gagin Vinar Apirtment, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

10. Dhlnnapuneni.Jyo!!s-n1 W./o. Ravi kumar, aged about 52 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Plot No. 503, Padmavathinagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. '1 l.Gandra Sudheer.Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 61 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-2, Rlo. Sakhapur (v) Velgltoor Mandal, karimnagar District

12.Smt 9qndra.fra1ry1 W./o. Sudheer Rao, aged about 55 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No. 1-2, Shakhapur (v) VelgatooiMandal, Karirirnagar district. 13.Shaik Mahaboob Pasha, S/o. Shaik Khasim Saheb, aqed about 58 vears. Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7-4-397, Kashmirgadda, Karininagar

14.T.ahera House wife, R/o.H.No. 7 -4-397 Kashmirgadda, Kari-mnagar. -B-eSlT, .W.ig 9f,9,!-!ahaboob pasha, aged about 50 years, Occ. 15. Saba Fathima, Wo \49hd, Aleemullah, aged about 24 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 12-2-B23lC169,SBl Coloiy, Mehdipatnam,'HyOeraOaO. 16.Khalid Bin_Sayeed, S/o. Sayeed Bin Mubarak, age about 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-1-189, Mukrampura, Karimnlgar.

17. Chenxadi Varaprasld Rao, S/o_ Chennai Srinivas Rao, aged about 52 years, occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 150'1 , 'A' Block, Fortune Tow6rs, Sha Madhapur, Hyderabad. ... Respondenis/Respondents . AND Safdar lt/irza, S/o.Mirza Liyaqat Ali Baig, aged about 63 year, Occ. Leoal Practitioner, R/o.H.No.'t1-6-666/4, Red Hilts, Hyderabad, Re[ by his Geneiat P9w9r.qf Attorney Holder, Shaik Abdul KhadeiJaved, S/o. Sp Aussain, ageO about 47 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No .6-3-444, Khanpura, Karimnagar To"wn and District. ... Petitioner/Petitioner Petitron under section 15'1 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1610212024 passed in lA No. 1 of 2O24 in CRp No. 574 of 2024 and dismiss the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Sajan Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.A.K. Mukheed Standing Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER / I / THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CII/IL REVISION P ION No.574 ot 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 29.OL.2024 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2024 and I.A.No.10I of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2OL4 by the Principal District ludge, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Sri P. Sajan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.100 of 2024 under Order 23 Rules 1 of CPC seeking Court to grant Ieave to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos.7 to L7 and he also filed LA.No.1Ot of 2024 under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) of CPC, to strike off issue Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 framed in the suit.

4. In I.A.No.100 of 2024, the petitioner seeks specific performance of an agreement of sale and a perpetual injunction regarding the suit property. Defendants 7 to 17 were included in the suit but have not filed any counterclaims asserting title or possession. The petitioner does not wish to proceed against them, as they are not parties to the relevant i 2 T I agreement (Ex.A2) and the suit does not aim to declare title or seek consequential relief. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the defendants are neither proper nor necessary parties, and the Court cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the pleadings under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 5. The counter affidavit in I.A.No.100 of 2024, the respondents stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 coluded with the petitioner to fabricate the agreement upon which the suit is based. They craim that neither respondent Nos.1 to 4 nor their vendors have any rights to the suit property, and that Neerla Balamallu and his Vendee, Sardar Inder Singh, also lack any tiile. consequenfly, the chirdren of sardar Inder Singh i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot alienate or engage in any transactions regarding the property, rendering the alleged agreement of sale illegal. The respondents assert that neither they themselves nor their father were in possession of the property; instead, respondent Nos.7 to L7 and bther plot owners have been in possession and enjoying the property. To protect their rights, respondent Nos.7 to U filed a petition to implead, which was allowed after hearing both sides. They also noted that many plot holders have built residential houses on their purchased plots within the suit property. The order dated 02.07.2008 passed in w.p.No.20104 0f 2005 against the petitione. became final stating that no appeal was 3 filed regarding the said order. Many other suits concerning the property are still pending. The respondents submitted that the petition is filed with an ulterior motive to obtain a consent decree and as such, requested the Court to dismiss the t petition.

6. LA.No.101 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner to strike of the issues Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to B framed in the suit.

7. The trial Court dismissed both the petitions and observing that there are no merits in the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed for specific performance and consequential injunction against respondent Nos_1 to 4. Upon death of defendant Nos.5 and 6, the question of granting an injunction no longer arises. Moreover, as the dominus litis, the plaintiff has the right to select the parties to the /,s. The trial court erred by allowing the impleading of defendant Nos.7 to 17, who are not parties to the sale agreement and have no standing in the suit for specific performance.

9. It is submitted that the plaintiff is always at liberty to withdraw the suit and hence ought to have withdrawn the suit as against the defendant Nos.7 to 17 and defendant Nos.7 to 4 17 cannot be allowed to canvas their case in a suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner and defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the formal parties and upon their death, the plaintifF chosen not to press the case against them and hence, impleading defendant Nos.7 to 17 in place of defendant Nos.5 and 6, is unwarranted. Defendant Nos.7 to L7 are not only precluded themselves as parties to the present suit, but also failed to see that defendant Nos.7 to 17 are under the guise of implead petition are trying to assert the title, which is not permissible and the trial Court erred in dismissing I.A.No.100 of 2024 by alleging that the plaintiff has no objection as the consent of the counsel is not a ground to allow the application and further more the consent of the counsel cannot be equated with the consent of party and furthermore also the alleged consent was given in LA.No.32 of 2023 and the present LA. is filed withdrawing the suit against defendant Nos.7 to 17.

10. The Apex Court in catena of decisions stated that in a suit for specific performance, the third parties have no right to implead and if the third parties feel that they have any grievance, they have to asseft title and possession in a separate suit if they so advised. As such, requested the Court to set-aside the order of the trial Court. 5

11. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the respondents herein filed implead petition in the suit where the Court after detailed enquiry allowed the petition and the respondents impleaded in the suit as interested parties. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.100 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 20t4 to withdraw the case against the respondents and the Court rightly dismissed the petition that once the petition was allowed and the same was not challenged as such, the same become final. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to remove the respondents from the suit proceedings which is not tenable. As such, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

12. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and the material on record, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.100 of 2024 wherein, the petitioner filed petition for withdrawing the suit against defendant Nos.7 to L7. Whereas, defendant Nos.7 to 17 were impleaded in the suit, when defendant Nos.7 to 17 filed petition for impleading them as a parties to the suit. tzrde I.A.No.32 of 2023 is filed seeking to implead them in the suit and the said petition was allowed on merits on 04.L0.2O23 observing that generally a suit for specific performance, the adjudication has to be confined to the scope of execution of registered sale deed. 6 However, a specific plea ls taken that the vendor of the plaintiff has no saleable interest in the suit property and question of adjudication of title is also arise and already defendant Nos.5 and 6 have title disputes. The present petitioner claims to have purchased the property through the vendees of defendant Nos.5 and 6, though there are no particulars as to when and under what documents and from whom the petitioner purchased and to what extent of land after suit property and where it is located. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 i.e., plaintiff submitted that though they have filed counter afFidavit opposing the petition, they have no objection for bringing the petitioner on record, the I.A.No.32 of 2023 was allowed. The claim of defendant Nos.7 to 17 is that original purchasers Mohd. Mustaq Hussain and Mohd. Liaqath Ali converted the suit land into 165 plots and sold the same to various persons through registered sale deed and further, the plaintifF himself impleaded defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the suit and defendant Nos.7 to 17 who are claiming through defendant Nos.5 and 6 were impleaded on record. As the petitioner in this case himself impleaded defendant Nos.5 and 6 now disputlng the fact that defendant Nos.7 to 17 are not the necessary parties and requested the Court for permission to withdraw the suit against defendant Nos.7 to 17 I 7 is not tenable. When defendant Nos.5 and 6 are impleaded by the plaintiff himself, stating that they are having interest in the property, now he cannot withdraw the same, as respondent Nos.7 to L7 purchased the property from defendant Nos.5 and 6. .Further defendant sailing with the plaintiff. Now the written statement of defendant Nos.7 to 17 is filed, issues were framed and there is extensive oral and documentary evidence has taken on record and at this stage, he cannot withdraw the suit against defendant Nos.7 to 17, as they stepped into the shoes of defendant Nos.5 and 6 who were impleaded by the petitioner himself. No.1 is totally 13' In view oF the pecuriar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents herein are necessary parties to the suit and without respondents herein, the suit cannot be adjudicated. As such, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the petition and accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed . To, //TRUE COPY// AS L, LAKSHMIBABU NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER 1 The Principal District Judge at Karimnagar. ? 9n" CC to Sri F,. Sajan xtlmar, eavocalJiopucf : 9J::S ro sn ru A ( rvrur.rreei stani;ng c".r;.;to"uct o^. ,J HIGH COURT DATED:23l01 i'025 I ORDER CRP.No.574 of 2024 rc" Yz iHE SiA- ,t. 2 0 FtB 2o[ ailsPA rcH9O (i'r ;, \t + DISMISSING THE CRP \1l &tf