The High Court · 2025

6. Burugu Ramya D/o Burugu Ravi Kumar. aged about 31 years, Occ., Business, No 1-1.37i, First Floor Maruthi Veedhi, Secunderabad. Hyderabad. Telangana, 500003.

7. Vallela Suseela Wo Late Kumara Swami Reddy, Aged About 81 Years, Occ. Business, Fyo 303, Datha Sai Apartments. Vedayapalem Palem, Nellore Ceramic Factory, Nellore. Andhra Pradesh, 524004.

8. Palligaram Radhika W/0 Thiruvenchery Mohan Sundara Rajan. Aged Abo.ut 48 Y-ears, Occ. House Wife. R"io 68. Rajendra Prasad Road, Anna Nagar. Vtc Chromerpet, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu, 600044. g. Sampath Rai Namna y S/Q . ^Vi1gy .S/0 G rt m en ts Haiol.-" l3.Sudhakar Ghantasala l0 Rajesh Lakshmioathi Baj Nampally, aged about 47 years, Occ. Private Emotbvee hlr' E_a06, Fgj"pr"fi;'lill' di,oun Mite Road Kokapet, Near Gtobai Eilse schoot. (okAp'ET, iifr:,ijlrilr'","nsrna, 500075 pariyagaram s/o Lakshmipathi Nathamuni Palliyaoaram. Aoed About +Z Vejrc-dtc. Fr[ateE'mproyee, R/0 Garnet101. "i, o l, tZrii n g a m p a r r e, R a n sa red d y, +YrX!#', i"#SiApa "Rffi 11,"n'?ixlii'#l?"ir'Ji."F:Jft l;:.f 'E:nii,i^g,,,:"s[a;.&:BH?B:, 12. Emdisetty Venkat Raohunand.al,, S/0 E Murali, aoed about 31 years. Occ. privare Emptovee anizz_tt.tlql.ig, S F rlid. ,'6#: seetharam Nagar, Near Shivatayam. N'eredmet vtc trrtariils-ii.ilFiv,i"ij#"0] rL,r"sana 500056. -sudarsanam, aged about 52 years, Occ, Business. Rt/0 Jade. riat,ruo. loz]-rriy ii;;; .l.er,,,iJt, rraroinrguda, Miyapur, Seritingampale. Rangareddy. f"A,is;;r,'5"00b0.1U:" l4.Grandhi Venkata Rama_Lakshmi Narayana S/O G N Setty, aged about 49 years. Oce. private Employee, nyO-nlt irrol +--O i no"" euartz, My Home rro,nrguoa. Miva'puil s*iri,ii'rrlprrf,l "drnsrr"ooy, retansana, 15.Gopu VijaypglRg.ddy,, S/g.gop_q Showri Reddy. Ased About 50 years. Occ. Busrness. Ryo Ftat N._?lj, Btocr<_ <, dmiVi^li) ?"r,lt"r,r"jo]"c;rVjr", Tempte Road. Miyapur. seritingampitte,'R;;grr;d[i, r erangana 500049. 16. E Jayasree wo E. Ivrurali. Aged_About s2 years, occ. Business. Rr/0 32- [7J"'i,?."i#.ffi lrr%%1F*;il;s,','"r'i"];s;;,"8r;;:"ii.;##i: 17. Venkata prataokumar Ghantasala., S/O Sudersanam Ghantasala. Aoed about 5e years occ s,lsilgssl mo a:o:zob'?,ij"iij1. Frat No 103. Se#te Apartments. Srreet No 12, Himayatnagar, Hfi";;;ri: Ietangana, 500029. "I8Xgf ,E:.1,T1#'.%,j;ilf ,$i",l?tiJ;,t3i",i:"il:,?.,,f ,["# 19. ltilolugu Lavanva W/0 tr/olugLt Rangarao, Aged About 36 years, Occ. House HJ.h5'3',',J:[]r",11;;i:,-r"i#-dil;lxft 1iltlto;,rv-r,v"j"r;ii,b:iiv; Hyderabad, Telangana, 5 d;B,o"ln.

20.Udaykanth Kottaoallv S/0 Kottapally . "o, Flat,

21. Gowrugari Sukunva Devi ^Satyanarayana, aged about 3g vears. O-0S,, fr,f V iiJ"il lewet. Madeenaguda, Occ. Business. il/o- Rr rby Serilingampalle, Rangareddy, fetangana,'SOO,O+dl'," 6.6y;a;-o;;:,H"#;#/3.^R-q:l"g^i,E:fif, .y3i?,T,"tJi,tp"E#B!l Kurnool District, Andhra pradesh, Sf gbb7. -q,qu '! ' vr 22.Mohan Yerri S/o y Muni RedlV. Aged About 40 years, Occ. private Emptoyee, No 201. corona 6rh cioss,tiirlffiti] o,. snirrr"ma Karanth Nagar. North Bangaiore, eangatore.-ia'r;;;r,:.,'do66ii. AND ...APPELLANTS 1 M/s Worthywish constructions pvl Ltd, .Having its Registered office at vila i?;'8;,'8t:xi#L";ff T,:?"8i"?"alg:lxigil:S:.-fr,#:iS[lH,".& Sithyanarayana, Aged about 66 years. Occ. Business, R/o Villa No. 50, Vajram Aster Homes. Gopanapally Village. Ranga Reddy District- 46, T.S. ...1.t RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. Dr. Aveena Gudapati, S/o Late G.V. Rao. Aged about 53 years. Occ. Business, No 6-3-8621212, 301. BlockA, Venkat Sudarshan Apartments. Greenlands. Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016, Telangana State

3. Dr. Kavitha Gudapati,, Wo Dr. Aveena Gudapati, No 6-3-8621212. 301, Block A, Venkat Sudarshan Apartments, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016, Telangana State

4. Gaddamidi David Raj., S/o G. Venkatesh, Aged about 41 years. Occ. Business. R"/o Flat No. 246, Vak Spark, 1St Floor, Road No. 78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033. T.S. Respondent No. 4 is a formal party ...2nd and 4th RESPoNDENTS/1't to 3'd RESPoNDENTS lA NO: 5 OF 2023 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 suspend the Order dated 2O.11.2O2 1 passed by the Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy, At Vikarabad in AOP 2 of 2021 pending disposal of the above CMA. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C. Nagaiah Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, Senior Counsel representing Sri B. Arjun Rao Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3: Sri Maruthi Rao Srungarapu The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE N.TUKARAMJI Civil Miscell aneous ADoeal No.161 of 2023 DGMENT: (per Honble Justice T.Vinod Kumar) 'ri Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Maruti Rao Srungarapu learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dt.20.10.2021 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Vikarabad (transferred now to Principal District Judge, Vikarabad) in A.O.P.No.2 of 2021.

3. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the 1't respondent herein had obtained an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act,) without joining the appellants herein as parties to the said proceeding even though the 1.t respondent was aware of the fact that all the appellants herein having purchased plots from the 2"d respondent herein in the year 2021.

4. It is further contended by the appellants that on account of the order obtained by the 1'r respondent herein behind the back of the appellants, the 2 revenue authorities are not allowing the appellants to deal with their propety and since, the 1s respondent had obtained the order suppressing the true facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained and thus, seeks for setting aside the said order.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1't respondent would submit that it had entered into an agreement on 02.11.2020 with the 2nd respondent for purchase of the subject land in Sy.Nos.86/A/1 andSTlAll and since, the disputes have arisen in relation to the aforesaid agreement, the lstrespondent had filed arbitration application, ziCe Arb.Appln.No.42 of 2072 for appointment of an arbitrator and the said application is pending consideration.

6. Learned Senior Counsel would fufther contend that as the appellants are claiming title to the subject property from the 2nd respondent subsequent to the 2"d respondent entering into an agreement with the 1" respondent herein and having failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement, the appellants cannot claim any better title to the subject property, and if the injunction order granted by the Court below is vacated, the same would adversely affect the interests of the 1e respondent.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2"d respondent, on the other hand. while not disputing the fact of pendency of arbitration application before this Couft for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising out of agreement of sale dt.02.11.2020, would however contend that the said ,l 3 agreement of sale has been a subsequently cancelled deed and it is only fter execution of the said cancellation deed, the 2'd respondent had sold part of the subject land to the appellants.

8. Learned counsel would further submit that the 1$ respondent herein had filed the underlying petition under Section 9 of the Act, knowing fully well that the 2nd respondent had sold part of the subject land in favour of the appellants without making them pafties.

9. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged

10. The agreement of sale dt.02.11.2020 entered into betrveen respondent Nos.1 and 2 is subject matter of arbitration application filed before this Couft under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Act, wherein this Court by order dt.04.08.2023, by nottcing that the agreement filed by the 1't respondent is not sufficiently stamped, directed for impounding of the aforesaid agreement of sale for taking the same on record. pursuant to the aforesaid order, the 1't respondent herein had paid the deficlt stamp duty of Rs.8,99,800/- on 29.07 .2024 along with one time penalty. Upon payment of the aforesaid deflcit stamp duty, the agreement of sale is placed on record of the arbitration application flled for appointment of the arbitrator pending consideration before this Court.

11. Since, the appellants herein claim to have purchased the subject property from the 2nd respondent after cancellation of the aforesaid agreement of sale, dt.02.11.2020 and inasmuch as the said agreement of 4 sale is subject matter of application for appointment of an arbitrator, this Court is of the view that the appellants cannot claim any independent right over the subject property other than that of the 2nd respondent. Since, the arbitration application filed by the 1't respondent for referring the dispute with the 2nd respondent herein for arbitration is pending consideration before I this Court, this Court is of the view that as the appellants herein are prranur"-'r, of the subject land from the 2nd respondent, they ought to join themselves in the aforesaid arbitration proceeding either by impleading themselves in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act pending before this Court or upon the arbitrator being appointed by this Court in Arb.Appln.No.42 of 2022 and entering reference.

72. Fufther, as the appellants are subsequent purchasers of the subject land in the year 2027, and inasmuch as the earlier agreement entered into by the 2nd respondent, through whom they are claiming the subject property is subject matter of dispute before this Court, the order of the Court below in granting ex pafte ad interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein not allowing them from alienating or creating any third party interests over the subject land admeasuring Acs.12.20 guntas in Sy.Nos.86/A/1 and 87lAlI ot Bilkal Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, in the consldered view of this Court does not suffer from any infirmity for being vacated.

13. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the appellants herein to seek impleadment in the ./ 5 arbitration proceedings either in the application pending consideration before this Court or before the arbitrator on a reference being made by this Court. L4. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. s i'ff't+-#t''$'EiR- IffRUE COPY'/ OFFICER / To,

3. 4 5 VH/DL \cy The Xll Addition al District Judge' Vikarabad, Rang One CC to Sri C One CC to Sri B One CC to Sri M Two CD CoPies Nag aiah, Advoc ate [OPUC] Ariu n Rao' Advoca te IOPUC aruti Rao SrungaraP u, Advoca te [OPUCI HIGH COURT DATED: 2510212025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.161 of 2023 6L Su76- oA t li oz l,iA\ 2[25 I OE PAT C,YT I to, z (-, *t DISPOSING OF CMA .op(d+ S*