The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Posani Laxmi Devi, Wo. Late P. Rajeshwar, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 6-1-58411, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, T. S., Rep., by her GPA Holder, K. Satyanarayana, S/o, K. Narasaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ. LIC Agent, R/o. FIat No. 202, Subhadra Apartments, Near Bhashyam School, Malakajgiri, Secunderabad, T. S.

2. Mr. K. Satyanarayana, S/o. K. Narasaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ, LIC Agent, R/o. Flat No. 202, Subhadra Apartments, Near Bhashyam School, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad, T. S. ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS '/ ',/ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim orders passed in cRP No 124612024 dated 03.05.2024 in the interest of justice. lA NO:1 OF 2024 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No. 57012015 pending on the file of Hon'ble Xlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar pending disposal of the revision petition in the interest of justice. CIVIL REVISION PETIT ION NO: 138/. OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 ol the constitulion of lndia against the order dated 26.12.2022 passed LA No. 14 of 2021 in os.No.570/20',l5 on the file of the court of the Special sessions Judge For Fast Track The cases Relating To Attrocities Against Women-Cum- Xlll Additiortal District And Sessions Judge-Cum- Xiii Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District At L. B. Nagar. Between:

1. Sri N. Someswar Rao, S/o. N. Venkaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ Business' R/o. Flat No. 408, Mycon Acropolis Apartments, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2. Sri N. Suman, S/o. Someswar Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 405, Mycon Acropolis Apartments, Madhapur, Hyderabad- ...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND 1 2 Smt. Posani Laxmi Devi, w/o. Late P. Rajeshwai, Aged about 63 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H. No.6-1-58411, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, T S, Rep., by her GPA Holder, K. Satyanarayana, S/o. K. Narasaiah, Aged about 5'l years, Occ LIC Agent, R/o. Flat No. 202, Subhadra Apartments, Near Bhashyam School, Malakajgiri, Secunderabad, T. S Mr. K. Satyanarayana, S/o. K. Narasaiah, Aged about 51 years, O^cc LlC. Agent, R/d. Fht No. 202, Subhadra Apartments, Near Bhashyam School, Malkajigiri, Secunderabad, T. S. ..RESPONDENTS/PLAINTlFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 oS No. 57012015 pending on the file of the court of special sessions Judge For Fast Track The cases Relating To Attrocities Against Women-Cum- Xlll Additional District And Sessions Judge-Cum- Xiii Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District At L, B. Nagar pending the revision petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim orders passed in CRP No 138412024 dated 03.05.2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners in both the C.R.P.s: SRI M SRINIVASA SWARUP Counsel for the Respondents in both the C.R.P.s: SRI A NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following: COMMON OROER 7 ' izt HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION Nos. 1246 and I 384 of 2o24 COMMON oRDER: C.R.P.No.1246 of 2024 is hled aggrieved by rhe order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Distriit at L.B.Nagar in LA.No.2O oi 2023 in O.S.No.57O of 2015.

2. C.R.P.No.1384 of 2g24 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2022 pa,ssed by XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nager.

3. Since both the matters are interconnected, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Sri M. Srinivasa Swarup, learned counsel lor the petitioners and Mr.A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. perused the record.

5. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred as they u,ere arrayed in the suit. 2 C.R.P.Nos.I246 ^nd LNA' J 1384 ol 2024 _T

6. The brief facts of the case that are relevant for adjudication of these revision petitions are that originally plaintiff No.1, represented by a G'P'A' holder' hled a suit uide O.S.No.570 of 20 15 on the lile of the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' for declaration and for recovery of possession against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property' During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No' 1 executed the registered sale deeds bearing Nos'3032/2015 and 3033 of 2015, dated 07.10.2015 conveying the suit schedule property in favour of ptopo"td plaintiff No'2' Initially' the proposed plaintiff No.2 hled an application uide I'A'No'450 of 2019, seeking permission to come on record as plaintiff in place of existing plaintiff in the suit' However' the said application was dismissed as not pressed' Subsequently' I.A.No.14 of 2O2l was liled under Order I Rule 10 (2) read withSectionl5loftheC.P.C.toimpleadproposedplaintiff No.2 as plaintiff No.2 in the suit, stating that proposed plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit schedule property uide registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'3032/2015 and 3033 of 2015, dated O7'10 2015 from plaintiff No'1 ,-- - - lrE i*!::!llql?::! --l ,, - 3 I-NA. J C.R.P.Nos 1246 anrl t38,4 ot 2024 and thus, stepped into the shoes of plaintiff No. 1 and therefore, he may be impleaded as party to the suit for effective adjudication of the suit.

7. The defendants filed counter and contcnded that no cause of action has arisen to the proposed plaintitf No.2 to implead him as party to the suit, that the sard application is clear abuse of p.u."""' of Court; and that there is no explanation for delay in filing the said application ancl if he had actually purchased the schedule property in the year 2015.

8. The trial Court uide order dated 26.12.2023, allowed the apptication with an observation that the proposed plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit schedule property from plaintiff No. 1, during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the suit schedule property devolved upon the proposed party and therefore, he is proper and necessary party to the suit in order to curtail the multiplicity of proceedings.

9. Subsequent to impleadment of plaintiff No.2 to the suit, plaintiffs filed an application uide LA.No.2O of 2023 under Order VI Rule IZ read, with Section 151 of C.p.C. for Il 4 LNA' J C.R.P.Nos.1246 ar.d 1384 of 2024 amendment of plaint and in the afhdavit liled in support of the application, the plaintiffs averred that though plaintiff No.2 was impleaded pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No. 14 of 2021, the averments with regard to his titie are not mentioned in the planit and therefore, the same ought to be incorporated in the plairrt. It was further averred that the PendencY of during respondents/ defendants raised multi storied building in the suit, the suit schedule O.oO.r,, and therefore, the defendants , are liable to pay damages for their illega-t construction and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and thus, the plaint has to be suitably amended to incorporating the reliefs of mandatory injunction and the claim for damages'

10. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application and contended that plaintiff No'2 is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property, hence he did not got any right or title over the suit schedule property. It is further averred that amendments sought to be made in the plaint by the petitioners cannot be allowed as it amounts to change of entire nature of the suit 5 LNA, J C.R.P.Nos,l246 and 1384 ot 2024 resuiting in fresh cause of action and therefore. the petitioners/plaintiffs ought to have liled a fresh suit instead of seeking amendments. Further details of encroachments of defendants are not mentioned and therefore, sought to dismiss the application.

11. The trial Court utd.e order dated 16.0g.2023, allowed the application with an observation that proposed plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and has come on record as plaintiff No'2 during the pendency of the suit. The triar court further observed that whether the constructions were made during the pendency of the suit or earlier ca,not be decided in the application and the szune can be decided only after trial and that the proposed amendments cannot be said to give raise to fresh cause of action or change the nature of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 16.O8.2023, the defendants filed C.R.p.No. 1246 of 2024.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court, without considering the contentions raised and the submissions made on behalf of the defendants, .-i 6 LNA, J C.R.P.Nos.l246 ar1d. 1384 of 20'24 has erroneously allowed the applications' He would further submit that the proposed amendments would change the entire nature of the suit and amounts to fresh cause of action, these aspects have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and the trial Court allowed the applications on erroneoui conclusions' I 3. Learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiffs have failed to.'provide details as to the date of alleged commencement of construction and also the alleged date of encroachment of suit schedule property by the defendants. However, the trial Court without considering these aspects has erroneously allowed the applications' Therefore, the impugned orders a-re unsustainable and the same are liable to be set aside.

14. Insofar as allowing the impleadment application is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that plaintiff No.2, who is the purchaser of schedule property has right to sue by liling a separate suit and at any rate, he cannot be impleaded as party to the suit. Learned counsel would further submit that the trial 'i f /' 7 LNA, J C.R.P.Nos.1246 ar.d, 1384 ol2024 Court mechanically allowed the application without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

15. Per contra, Iearned counsel for the respondents would submit that the trial Court has rightty allowed the impugned application, since plaintiff No.2 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit and thus, he stepped into the shoes of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, he is a .,proper and necessary party for adjudication of the suit.

16. Insofar as amendments are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that these amendments have become necessary in view of subsequent developments made after filing of the suit in the form of encroachments and constructions made by the defendants in the schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. l7 A perusal ol the record would disclose that plaintiff No.1 filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession tturing the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 8 LNA' J C.R.P.Nos.i246 and I384 of 2024 -i purchased the property uide registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 3O32l2Ol5 and 3033 of 2015' dated 07.1O.2025 and filed an application to implead himsell as plaintiff No.2. As rightly observed by the trial Court' since the suit schedule Property is purchased by plaintiff No'2' during pendency of suit, in otder to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he is a proper and necessary party to the suit' Insofar as application for amendment is concerned' it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that subsequent to liling of the suit, the defendants encroached the suit schedule property and raised multi storied building therein and therefore' additional reliefs in the form of the mandatory injunction and damages for itlegal occupation and demolition have become necessary for comprehensive adjudication of all issues in lis between the parties' Since the proposed amendments are sought to be made based on the developments that occurred subsequent to filing the suit' and the sarne are necessary for comprehensive adjudication of all issues and the same does not amount to changing the nature of the suit' 9 LNA, J C.R.P.Nos.1246 and 1384 of 2024

18. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion o[ this Court, the petitioners failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court and thus, both the revisions failed and are accordinglS,, dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starrd closed. /TCUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR R: \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Xlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B, Nagar 2. One CC to SRI M SRINIVASA SWARUP Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI J P SRIKANTH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI SRI A NAJEEB KHAN Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies SS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ?o c.) (v- s s$s .ll u o c P t L\ 1., ,( J.r/ T- COMMON ORDER CRP.No.{ 246 & 1384 of 2024 DISMISSING BOTH THE C.R.P,S WITHOUT COSTS