K'Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresan '

4. Byagari Vinod Kumar, S/o.B.Srisailalm, aged About 24 yeer ;, Occ Agriculture R/o.H.No.3-75, Vaftinagulapalli village, Rajendra Nagar Mar dal, Ranga Reddy district. .. .. Respondents/ ResF ( ndents No.4 to 6/ Def( ndants No.4 to 6.

5. R.Priya Kumar, S/o.late Samuel, aged Aged about 60 yea-s Occ. BHEL employee, R/o. H. No.3-64!95/14, Nallagandia, Shersingarr oally Mandal, Ransa Reddy District. (Respondents 2 to 5 are not neces!. l_RflsFB*r=nil Propose J Respondent No.7 (Respondent No.2 to 5 are not necessary parties) lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circl nstances stated in the affidavit ftled in support of the petition, the High Court may b : pleased to STAY of all turther proeeedings in OS.No. 1549 of 2013 on the O, urt of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts r)OA) Act-Cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district et L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the above C.R.P. .and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. KOPPULA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER .:,' ;- F7 .*._. : , ..r. >* ---,/ .J. y' ",j. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO RE1ITSIO N PETITION No.2 67 of2022 CTVIL DATED THE 1't DAY OF DBCEMBER' 2025 Between: Lalman Raj Kumari Bai and others And Raglrunath Singh and others ...Petitioners ...Respondents ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I'A'No' 166 of 2O2l in O.S.No.1549 of 2O13, dated 15 12'2O21 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at L'B'Nagar' Ranga Reddy District, wherein, the apptication filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section I51 of CPC to imPlead Sri R' PriYa Kumar as defendant No'7 in the suit was allowed

2. Petitioner Nos.I to 3 herein are the respondent Nos' 1 to 3- defendant Nos. 1-3 and respondent No l herein is the petitioner- plaintiff and respondent Nos'2 to 4 hercin are the respondent -/ 2 Nos.4 to 6-defendant Nos.4 to 6 and respondent No 5 hcrein is the proposed party to the suit.

3.1. karned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order and decree passed by the leamed trial Court is ur sustainable in law and caused irreparable loss and hardship to lhe petitioners. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the appl cation came to be frled is to implead the proposed party (responclc::t No.5 herein) in the suit. The Court below ought to have seen that no documents are filed along with I.A.No.l66 of 2O2L to impleac the proposed party in the suit and prayed to set aside the impugr.r d order.

4.1. Notice got issued to respondent No. l_petiti: .rer-plaintiff served but none appeared.

4.2, lt is mentioned in the cause title of the Civil R, vision petition that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessary par.r rs to the Civit Revision petition. 5 Power of the High Court under Articte 222 is ; rpervisory and ls supervision ts exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferr.e c by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases ,*.1 r re errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave ir f ustice by the court oltribunal assuming jurisdiction which it c res not have, a .' '-/ 1 failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have' or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K'Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan '2025 SCC Online SC 985)'

6. Respondent No' 1 is the plaintiff in O'S'No' 1549 of 2O13' Suit is frled for specific performance of contract to direct the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein (petitioner Nos' 1 to 3 herein) to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs'7'5O'O0O/- and convey the registered sale deed, in alternate, the court may pleased to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to return the amount of Rs 32'50'OO0/- with interest at l8o/o per annum from the date of payment till realization . Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the defendant Nos'1 to 7 filed their written statement and 3 in the aforesaid suit have that they have alienated the suit contended in ParagraPh No'4 schedule property i.e., Ac'0-34 guntas in Sy'No 299lA' situated at Vattinagu.lapally ViIIage, Rajendranagar Mandat' Ranga Reddy District to defendant Nos'4 to 6 therein (respondent No'2 to 4 herein) by way of registered sale dced datcd I 6 'O2 ' 2013 uid'e document No.1424 of 2O13'

8. Respondent No' I -petitioner-plaintiff has fited I'A'No' 166 of 2021 stating that during pendency of the suit' respondent Nos'2 to 4 herein-respondent Nos'4 to 6-defendant Nos 4 to 6 have 4 alienated an extend of Ac.O_Og guntas in ly.No.299lA to Sri R. Priya Kumar by way of registered sale deed ,r rted I r.og.2or1 uide documen L No.7Z26 of 2OlZ.

9. Petitioner Nos. I to 3 herein, who are the restr cndent Nos.l to 3 in I.A.No. 166 of 2O2l have filed their counter a rd opposed the application. IO. Learned trial Court has allowed the appl cation filed by respondent No. I -petitioner_plaintiff stating that R. priya Kumar is a proper and necessary party.

11. It is apt to mention here that respondent N,) i.4 to 6 therein (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein) remained ex parterr .he main suit. 12. Record goes to show that petitioner Nos.l :o 3-defendant Nos. I to 3 in the suit have already alienated tl-t suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 (respor.r ent Nos.2 to 4 herein) on t6,.O2.2O13 uide document No. tz 24 of 20t3. Subsequent purchaser i.e., respondent No.S here r is the proper and necessary party to the suit as he purchased tt e same during the pendency of the lis.

13. Learned trial Court has rightly appreciated t re facts of the and right allowed the application Illed by t re respondent i!?ffi: .t r*. Y ir' r- - t .{a:..a 4 'a- 5 No. l-petitioner-plaintiff hotding that Sri R. Priya Kumar- respondent No.S herein is necessary party to the suit.

14. This Court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court in view of the fact that powers of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India are limited as stated supra ln paragraph No.5. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. SD/. A.JAYASREE AS ISTANTREGISTRAR ,TTRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1Hisffi :{iJ,i?".'ili"1,'"iBH,:':i:lliJJr"'"'"f :ffit'f;ff " , At"t"t$1g""'aRt. KoPPULA GoPAL Mvocate toPucl 3. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL f{- and S Ts (POA) Reddy District HIGH COURT DATEO:0111212025 ORDER CRP.No.267 ot 2022 THE S tA ( ) )., :.* :\. 3 ,rrq 7f!7f, z o /) : SpnrCH({) DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6 .o?tf fir*