The High Court · 2025

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 grant a stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 521 ot 2020 on the file of the Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D S V G NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondents: R A CHARY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA,{LISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.803 OF 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order d,ated22.12.202l passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in l.A.No. 1098 of 2020 in OS.No j2l of 2020'

2. Heald Sri D.S.V.G.Naga Raju, leamed counsel 1br revision petitioner ancl Sri Raparthi Venkateswarlu, lea:ned Standing Counsel for rcspondent No.3-GHMC. Though S'ri R'A Chary, advocate, entet'ed appearance lor respondent Nos'l ancl 2, none appeared on his behalf.

3. The revision petitioner is the proposed par1y, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs and r:espondent No'3 herein is defendant in lhe suit before the trial Court.

4. The facts of the case shom off unnecessary details are that respondentNos.l and 2 filed suit in OS.No.521 of 11020 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hytlerabad, for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining respondent No'3 herein- defendant therein and its men, etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, ::r 2 LNA, J CRP.No.E03 oJ 202i i.e., house bearing No.16-11-751 in Sy.No.69, admeasuring 336 square yards situated at Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. 4.1. The proposed party is the owner of house bearing No.16-ll-750, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, which is situated adjacent to the suit schedule properfy i.e., house bearing No.16-l l-750, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. The proposed parly averred that the suit schedule property is being constructed by respondent Nos.l and 2 in violation of the sanctioned plan and also without leaving setbacks and thus, affecting his easementary rights.

4.2. The case of the proposed party.is that he made complaints to the GHMC on 11.12.2019 and 23.12.20219 seeking ro take action against the unauthorized constructions made by respondent Nos.l and 2, however, as respondent No.3-GHMC did not take any action, he filed WP.No.5083 of 2O2O and this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 disposed of the said Writ petition directing respondent No.3 to take action against the illegal constructions, if any, made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ln the said order, it was also observed that the writ petitioner, i.e., the proposed party herein is at liberty to get himself impleaded in the suit. Accordingly, the revision petitioner filed an application in IA.No.52l of 2020 _-4=-- lE!!t.=-Y J LNA, J CRP,No.803 of 2023 praying the Court to implead him as defbndant No.2 in the suit- OS.No.521 of 2020. However. the trial Court disrnissed the said applicatiorr vide impugned order dated 22.12.202t, primarily on the ground that the High Court has already directed respondent No.3-GIIMC to take action against the unauthoriserl constructions, if any, made bi, respondent Nos. I and 2 and therelor e, the proposed pafty is not necessary party for adjudication of dispute between respondent Nos.l and 2-plaintiffs and respondent No.3-defendant in the su it.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said epplication, the proposed party filed the present Revision Petition.

6. Lean-red counsel lor the revision petitioner contended that despite the liberty given to the revision petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by respondent Nos.l and 2, vide order dated 06.03.2020 of this Court in WP.No.5083 ot 2020, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the aforesaid application. Leamed counsel fufther contended that as respondent Nos.l and 2,, who are neighbours to the proposed party, are rnaking c,rnstructions in violation of the sanctioned plan, that too, without leaving any I l I I I I f,lr I 4 LNA, J CRP.No.803 ol2023 setbacks, thereby the rights of easement and ventilation to the house of the revision petitioner are adversely affected and therefore, the revision petitioner being the directed affected parly due to the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.i and 2 is a necessary party to the suit. Leamed counsel further contended that in the said suit, respondent Nos.l and 2 obtained an ex parte order of status quo, but respondent No.3_GHMC is not taking steps to get the same vacated and hence, the revision petitioner, whose easementary rights are affected, is necessary party to the suit. Leamed counsel, accordingly, prayed to allow this Revision Petition.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that the revision petitioner, whose house is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property covered by O.S.No.52l of 2020 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, is aggrieved by the illegal constructions being made respondent Nos. I and 2, which affects his easementary rights. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing Wp.No.5083 of 2020 and this Court vide interim order 06.03.2024, while directing respondenr No.3 herein-GHMC to deal with the matter personally and to ensure that the illegal constructions, if any, made by rqppondent ) LNA, J '.:RP.Ntt.803 of 2023 Nos.1 and 2, are dealt with in accordance with la\,. has also given liberty to the revision petitioner to get himself ir pleaded in the suit. It appears that pursuant to the same, the rev ision petitioner filed an application before the trial Court praying to implead him as I t I I defendant in the suit filed by respondent Nos.l and ,t. However, the trial Court has lost sight of the liberty granted by .his Court vide order 06.03.2020 in lA.No. I of 2020 in WP.No.50tl3 o1'2020 and erroneously dismissed the said application

8. In the light of the above and fuither, since rlrc rights of the revision petitioner are said to be affected in vieu, of the alleged illegal constluctions nrade by respondent Nos. I and 2, in the considered opinior.r of this Court the revision petitioner is a proper and necessary pafty to the suit for proper adjudication 01'the same.

9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowcrl and the order dated.22.12.202l passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courl, Hyderabad in l.A.No. 1098 of 2020 in OS.No.521 of 2020, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1098 of 202(r in OS.No.521 of 2020 on the file ol VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stands allowed 6 LNA, J CRP.N0,Eq3 o12023

10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. D S V G NAGARAJU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. R A CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. CYS/gh (k HIGH COURT DATED: 0210412025 ORDER CRP.No.803 of 2023 \:. \i -\. :\\C'-'' 2gAIJE2M I. , '.ri CRP IS CLOSED WITHOUT COSTS ( tr lo + v I