The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Varalaxmi, Dio. Late A. Kadappa, Aged about 42 years, Occ: House Wife.

2. A. Laxman, S/o. Late Kadappa, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Private Employee. 3. A. Siddu, S/o. Late Kadappa, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee. (All residents of H.No.2-27, Khajaguda Village, Serilhgampally Mandal, R.R.District, and represented by GPA Holders Ch. Vikas Reddy and B.V.Nageswar Rao vide G.P.A. Doc.No.6967lm13 dated 30-03-2013) ... Res ponderits/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

4. Smt. A.Yadamma. Wio. Late A. Kadappa, aSed 56 years, Occ: Housewife. 5. A. Venkatesh, S/o Late. A.Kadappa, Aged 36 years, Occ: Private Employee 6. A. Mallesh, S/o Late A.Kadappa, aged 32 years, Occ: Business. 7. A. Lingaiah, S/o. Late A.Kadappa, aged 30 years, Occ: Private Service. (The Respondents 4 to 7 are R/o.H.No.2-27, Khajaguda Vil{age, Serilingampally Mandal, R R District. ...Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 4 -E-!.!}!'-

8. S. Satish Kumar, S/o. Late Narayana Swamy, aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture.

9. S. Ram Lingam, Late Vittalaiah, aged 49 years, Occ: Employee. 10.S. Sanjeevam, S/o. Late S.Sattaiah, aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture.

11. S. Namassivudu, S/o Late S.Sattaiah, aged 57 years, Occ: Employee. (The Respondents 8 to 11 are R/o Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal. R.R. District) ...Respondents/Defendants No.5 to 8

12.K. Vishweshwar Reddy,, s/o. Late K. Madhav Reddy, aged 40 years, Occ: Business,

13.M/s. Stiphan M. lndia Ltd., Rep by its M.D. Sri K. Vishweshwar Reddy, S/o. Late K. Madhav Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business,

14.M/s. Health Care (lndia) Ltd., Rep by its M.D Sri K. Vishveshwar Reddy, S/o Late K. Madhav Reddy, aged 40 years,

15. Sri.K.Anindit Reddy, S/ o. K.Vishveshwar Reddy, aged 30 years, Occ: Business, (The Respondents 12 to 15 are residents of 8-2-67411 , Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.) '16.M/s. lndian Hospitals Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Sri. G.Surender Reddy, S/o Sita Ram Reddy, aged 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Apollo Hospital Complex, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

17. Smt. K.Meera Reddy, Wo. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-3-1, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. ...Respondents/Defendants No.9 to 14

18.Smt. V. Bharathi, D/o. Narayana Swamy, aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,

19.Smt. M. Amrutha, D/o. Late. Narayana Swamy, aged about 45 years, Occ Housewife.

20.Smt. Krishnaveni, D/o. Late. Narayana Swamy, aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife.

21.Smt. K. Prabha, D/o. Late. Narayana Swamy, aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife.

22. Smt. K. Arunajyothi, D/o. Late. Viftalaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife

23.S. Anit Kumar, S/o. Late Sanjeevudu, aged 42 years, Occ: Business.

24. Smt. Aneetha, D/o. Late Sanjeevudu, aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife.

25. Harikrishna, S/o. Late Sanjeevudu, aged 38 years, Occ: Business.

26. Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Sanjeevudu, aged 35 years, Occ: Business. *_-g --;.-r. --1--,it,r.*y .r..-,:-,:.;r:Fl -- *--a,irr-

27. Smt. Shivranjini, D/o. S. Namassivudu, aged 35 years' Occ: Housewife' 28. Mallikarjun, S/o. S. Namassivudu, aged 33 years, Oci: Private Service' (The Respondents 18 to 28 are R/o. Khajaguda Village. Serilingampally Mandal. R.R. District) No relief is sought against Respondents (a) to 28). Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in 1.A.No.2447 of 2024 in o.s.No.80B ot 2007 on the file of Honourable court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.V.S. Chowdary Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER -..4+-z THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY CML REVISION PETITION No.832 of 2025 ORDER: The instant Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia challenging the order dated 19.02.2025, in I.A.No.178 of 2025 n

1.A.No.2447 of 2024 in O.S.No.808 of 2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. S.V.S. Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a petition hled under Order t Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (tbr shot, 'CPC') t.e I.A.No.178 of 2025 seeking impleadment of the petitioner / proposed respondent No.26 in I.A.No.2447 of 2024 which is a petition filed by the ptaintiffs to set aside the order of dismissal under Section 151 of CPC.

4. The petitioner / proposed respondent No.26 is said to Lre a purchaser of a property purchased by him from his vendors in March, 2021 bv wav of registered sale deed and the vendors of the petitioner / proposed respondent No.26 were the defendants in O.S.No.808 ol 2007 which rvas a suit for partition, declaration of sale deeds executed by detbndant Nos.l to 8 and late K. Kadappa as null and void and also to grant perpetual injunction. Page 2 of3

5. It is found that the said suit got dismissed as withdrawn on 12.08.2021. The plaintiffs to the said suit have now filed an I.A. before the Trial Court i.e. I.A.No.2447 of 2024 saying that there was a fraud played in so far as the withdrawal of the Suit is concerned. The said l.A. is pending consideration before the Trial court. It is in the said I.A. that the petitioner herein has now lried a separate I.A. i.e. I.A.No.l78 of 2025 seeking his impleadment as proposed respondent No.26 in I.A.No.2447 of 2024'

6. It is this I.A.No. 178 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the Trial court leading to frling of the instant Revision.

7. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that in fact the right of the petitioner herein has been duly considered by the Trial Court and the Trial court also protected his right to the extent of permitting to move an appropriate application in the event if I.A.No.2447 of 2024 is allowed and o.S.No.808 of 2007 gets restored. S.TheviewoftheTrialCourtwasthatasofnowtheI.A.No.244Tof2024 has been frled by the plaintiffs only atteging fraud in so lar as withdrawal of o.S.No.808 0f 2007 is concemed. In either situations i.e. even if I.A.No.2447 0f 2024 is allowed or rejected, the right of the petitioner herein in so far as the decision in the said I.A. would not be in any manrler detrimental' Nonetheless, Page 3 of3 if o.S.No.808 of 2oo7 stands finally restored and thereafter a decision is taken, perhaps the right of the petitioner may have some bearing. But that situation has not arisen as of now and the case is only revolving around I.A.No.2447 of 2024 in so far as seeking restoration of o.S.No.808 of 2007 and recalling the order of withdrawal of the said suit on 12.08.2021.

9. Since the Trial court has itself observed that the petitioner,s right to get impleaded may arise only in the event if the original suit stands restored, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, as such, as ofnow should not have any grievance and that he may seek impleadment if the original suit gets restored to its original. lG. Accordingly, this court does not find any strong case made out by rhe petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the -l Court. The Revision thus fails, and is accordingly, rejected. t l. As a sequel, miscella,eous petitions pending if any, shatt stand crosed However, there sha[[ be no order as to costs. SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t- SECTION OFFICER Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at L.B.Naoar Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] To, 1 2 J Kam/PSL The Principal District & One CC to Mr. S.V.S. Two CD Copies \F + o SL.if (. tlJJg2 206 .)1t,3,n11-,r! HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER GRP.No.832 ot 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION (+ I 6 v\