The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT/PLAINTIFF No.2 3 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, , Rep., by its commissioner, having its Head officer, AtTank Bund Road Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT lA NO: 1 OF 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 4346 of 2024 on the file of the Court of lV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 924 OF 2025 Petition Under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the Order dated 2810112025 Pasr;ed in l.A.No. 16 ot 2025 1.A.No.2513 o't 2024 in O.S. No. 4346 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the lV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. Between: T.Madhava Rao, S/o. T.Raghunadha Rao, Aged about,16 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-2 -1 8515412, Srinivas Nagar, Colony Bagh Arrrberpet, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONER/ PROPOSED RESPONDENT/PITOPOSED DEFENDANT

1. A. Preethi Wo. A. Pawan Kumar, Occ- Business, R/,: H.No.7-1-307114121, M-S. Resirlency, Flat No. G-2, Subhash Nagar, Sanathnagar, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..RESPONDENT/RESPONt)ENT/PLAINTIFF No.1

2. A. Pawan Kumar, S/o. Aravind Kumar, Occ. Businest;, R/o. H.No.7-1- 307114121 M.S. Residency, Flat No. G-2, Subhash Nagar, Sanathnagar, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONI)ENT/PLAINTIFF No.2 3 The Greater Hyderabad Munrcipal Corporation,, Rep., by its commissioner, having its Head officer, At Tank Bund Road Hyderabirr: - RESPONDETiT/RESPO NDENT/DEFENDANT Counsel for the Petitioner in both the C.R.P.s: SRI KANIIITURI KALYANI Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 in both the C.R.P.r; PADALA PRAVTN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in both the C.R.P.s: G P FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAI{D KUMAR SHAVILI C.R.P.Nos.922 and.924 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the sarne, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 28.01.2025 passed in I.A.No. 15 ol 2025 & I.A.No. 16 of 2025 in I.A.No.2513 ot 2024 in O.S.No.4346 of 2024 by the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, both the civil revision petitions are filed.

3. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K.Kalyani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondents

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.922 ol 2025 are hereunder discussed

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner has hled applications under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking to 2 impieaci him as ciefenciant No.2 in the srrLt as r,r,ell as responde:et No.2 in the injunction [,etition i.e., I.A.No.25 13 of 2024. Without appreciatirLr:, any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, th: trial Court dismissec the sarne uide common (rralEr dated

28.0r.2015.

6. Learned Senior Counsel had furth<: contended that the petitioner has given a complaint 1 I the Greater Hyderaba,C Municipai elorporation ((i I{.M.C) to demolish the property of the 1.1 and 2,,,r 'espondents and the GHMC has initiated tht' demolition proceedings. Against the ordcr o[ demoliL,on, 1., and 2nd respc,ndents have filed O.S.No.43.t,r of 2024 without irnpleading the petitioner. In tl rose set of circumstaoces, the petitioner has filed , rpplications under Or,1er I Ruie 10 C.P.C. tc implr,ad him as defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 in tlrr: O.S. and injunction petition, respectively, as the (l.H.M.C. has initiated demolition proceedings against tlrr 1"t and 2.d respondents at the instance of the petitionr:r. lrarned 3 Senior Counsel had further contended that if the petitioner is impleaded as respondent-defendant, the petitioner would assist the trial Court in adjudicating the case. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the revisions by directing the trial Court to implead the petitioner as respondent-defendant in the suit frled by 1"t and 2"d respondents.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.l and 2 had contended that the petitioner has no locus to come on record as proposed respondent, as admittedl_y, the lsr and 2"d respondents are challenging the illegal action of the G.H.M.C. in l demolishing the structures. Therefore, there are no merits in the revisions and the same are liable to be dismissed. \

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the GHMC has initiated the demolition proceedings against the 1"t and 2"d respondents at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of I justice, the applications filed by the pet.rioner under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C, are liable to be a[ owed

9. A,:cordingly, the Civil Revision F,etitions are allowed lty setting aside the common ,.lrder dated

28.Ol.2OtS passed in I.A.No.l5 of 2025 8r I.A No.16 of 2025 tn I.A.No.2513 of 2024 in O.S.No./ jr16 of 2024 by the :V Junior Civil Judge, City r)ivil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner 1S permitt':d to get impleadecl as defendant No.2 in th: suit and respondent No.2 in the injunction petition. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applicat ol)s pending if any, sherll stand closed Sd/- T. JAYASREE 1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR I To, ,/TRUE COPY// qECTION OFFTCER \ \ \

1. lV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. 2 One CC to SRI KANUMURI KALYANI Advocate [OPUC] 3, One CC to SRI PADALA PRAVIN KUMAR Advocate [OF'l.lC] 4. Two CCs to G P FOR SERVICES, HIGH COURT FOR IIlE STATE OF TELANGANA IOUT]

5. Two CD Copies 8l SS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 COMMON ORDER I CRP.No.922 & 924 of 2025 ALLOWING BOTH THE C.R.P.s WITHOUT COSTS q { , --\'. , *,i.ir r(. C -f 18 t[I ittzq ' .I/.-, .,, ,,.a, \- -.t.,:...-.