The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Proposed Defendant No.5 AND

1. t\,4. P.Vasanthi, W/o.lr,4.P.Damodaram, Aged about 84 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Plot No.126, Road No.74, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Hema R.Prasad, D/o.Rajendra Prasad, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Employee, presently residing at 1310. Alleyan Trail, Sugar Land, fX'77479, Texas, USA

3. Nikhil Choudary, S/o.Y Y.Rajendra Choudary, Aged 39 years, Employee, R/o.H No.8-2-2931821J-111/126, Road No.74, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -33. Respondents No.1 to 3 are represented by their GPA Holder P.K.Vinay Babt S/o.P.Krishna, aged 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Plot No.176, SIET Employees Co-of.Society, Guttalabegumpeta, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081. ...ResPondents/Plaintiffs

4. Arrgudta Devendar Yadav, S/o.Late Pandu Yadav, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business. Rl/o.H.No.1 -98/1 5, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

5. Athar Laxmaiah, S/o. A.Lakshmaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H.No.1-57129, Kalwarkar Gym, Guttalabegumpeta, Madhapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. J.Narasimha Yadav, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Ryo.Plot No.97/98, 100 feet Road, Pallavi Colony, Madhapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District - 500 081 .

7. Kasi, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged 51 years, Occ.Business, Ri/o.Guttalabegumpeta, Madhapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District - 500 081. (Respts. 4-7 are only profarma parties) ...Respon,Jents/Defendants lA NO: '! OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.139 of 2023 on the file of the learned Vl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at kukatpally, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. I I I I I I ! I Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I I I i i --------/ ORDER: THE H ONOURABL E SRI JUST CE P.SAM OSHY cIVIL EVISION PETITIO N No.774 of 2025 The instant Revision Petition is filedinvoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated 20.12.2024, in I.A.No.687 of 2024 in O.S.No.139 of 2023, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a petition filed under order I Rule 10 read with section 151 0f civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short,'CPC'). The rejection was to the request of impleading the petitioner herein as defendant No.5 in the original suit.

4. In the instant case, the original suit i.e. O.S.No.139 of 2023 has been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 against the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 for perpetual injunction seeking an order of restraint against the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and their henchmen or anybody else for and on behalf of them perpetually restraining them from any sort of interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 over the suit schedule Property.

5.Thesuitschedulepropertyintheinstantcaseistheland admeasuring Ac.0.12.40 guntas or 0.L24 hects., situated in survey No.1O (part) of Guttala Begumpet, Seri Lingamplly, Ranga Reddy District. The suit has been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3claimingthemselvestobetheabsoluteownersandinpeaceful possession of the said property. The respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 alleged in their plant that the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and their henchmen are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession by coercion and illegally trying to evict the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 from the suit schedule property forcing them to file a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner herein / proposed defendant No.5 has sought for his impleadment as a necessary party'

6.Accordingtothepetitioner/proposeddefendantNo'5,neither the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 nor the defendants in the said suit i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein are in actual ownership of the suit schedule property or they had any cogent strong proof in establishing their claim over the suit schedule property. on the contrary, the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 contends that the original owner of the property in dispute was Mr. K. Surendra Rao, who 7 by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 11.03.19g2, had assigned Ac.10-00 guntas to the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 and the entire suit for perpetuar injunction is nothing but a coilusive suit without disclosing actuar factuar matrix of the case onry with an intention of siphoning away the property which is otherwise in possession of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5.

7. It was the contention of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 that subsequentry he had come in possession of the suit schedure property pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into between Mr. K. Surendra Rao and himself, and the possession of the suit schedule property was given to him. Meanwhile, Mr. K. Surendra Rao, the original owner of the property, is said to have sord the property in favour of M/s. Ravi Shankar Films pvt. Ltd. However, on the ground of the alleged agreement of sare and the conditions therein being refused to be honoured by the authority concerned, the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 fired a suit in o.S.No.740 0f 1gg6 for specific performance on the fire of the I Addl. Senior civil Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 on 14.11.2005. Against the said judgment and decree in o.s.No.740 of 1996, a First Appear was preferred before the V Additional District ludge (Fast rrack Court), R.R. District at L.B. Nagar vtde Appeal Suit No.8 of 2006, which too was dismissed on 09.04.2014. Against which also, a Second Appeal i'e' S'A'No'846 of 2014 is filed before this High court which is still pending consideration and there is already an interim order granted by this High Court which is also still in operation.

8. In the given circumstances, the question to be considered is' was itjustifiedonthepartoftheTrialCourttohaverejectedthepetition filed under Order I Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC by for impleading the petitioner herein as proposed defendant No 5 in the suit? g.Admittedly,thefactualmatrixnarratedinthepreceding paragraphs are not in dispute. Undoubtedly, in the instant case' the original suit i.e. O.S.No.139 of 2O23 is only a suit for perpetual injunction.Asisknowntoallthatasuitforperpetualinjunctionis alwaysapersonal/,sbetweentheplaintiff(s)anddefendant(S)alone andtheclaimforperpetualinjunctiondoesnotmeansettlingoftitle over the suit schedule property. Even if the suit for perpetual injunction is allowed, the legal right of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 as such would not get hampered or adversely affected so far as the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5's claim over of title and ownership of the said property is concerned Even if the order of perpetual injunction is passed, it would be binding only so far as the defendants in the suit is concerned and in no way it would be binding upon the petitioner/ proposed defendant No.5 or upon anybody else.

10. In the said circumstances, the question also to be answered is, whether the petitioner herein is required to be added as an additional defendant No.5 in O.S.No.139 of 2023 which in fact is only a suit for perpetual injunction between the plaintiffs and defendants therein. By impleading himself in the present suit, perpetual injunction would not again give rise to any right, nor can the Trial Court adjudicate upon the ) ) so-called title over the said property by the petitioner herein. 11, The reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Revision is the fact that if the petitioner / proposed deFendant No.5 intends to protect their property or claim any right or title over the suit schedule property claiming it to be theirs, it would be the petitioner who would be required to file another suit. The right of the petitioner cannot be decided in a suit filed by a third party against altogether different person and the suit also being only to the extent of issuance of perpetual injunction. ,,2. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that the view expressed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impleadment Paqe 6 of 6 petitionfiled by the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 cannot be found fault with and the Revision Petition therefore deserves to be and IS accordingly dismissed. However, the right of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 in availing appropriate civil remedies independently against the plaintiffs and other defendants is left open.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- V HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S;ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at KukatPallY 2 d;;-CC to Mr Hari SreedharAdvocate [OPUC] -^- 3 il ;a i; M; Gandvadapu Rajesham' Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Karn I'\ I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER CRP.No.774 of 2025 \ i? | 1., 1 6E ST4 r4: 29 I{AY M z o .} | ^- 9r;\) DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION C',).vv4 f