The High Court · 2025

Smt. Beerla Sathyamma, Wio Ayyanna, age about 70 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Marikal village Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. .8. Mallesh, Sio B.Ayyanna, aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.no.2-77, Marikal viliage Thimmajipet [/landal, Nagarkurnool District B.Balrai, S/o Late Ayyana, aged about 43 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o H.no.2- 77, Ma;ikal village Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District Beerla Harika; D/o Beerla Anjaneyulu, aged about 21 yeats, Occ.House wife, R/o H No.2-77, Marikal village Thimmajipet Mandal. Nagarkurnool District. kum. B. Bhanu, D/o Late B. Anjaneyulu, Age 8 years, minor under the ouardianship of her natural mother by name B.Alivela Wo B.Anjaneyulu, aged ibout 40 years, R/o H.No.2-7711, Marikal village, Thimmalipet Mandal' Nagarkurnool District. Beerla Merlnakshi, D/o Late B.Anjaneyulu, aged about 12 years, minor under Ge ouardianship of her natural mothei Smt. B.Alivelu Wo Late B.Anjaneyulu, aged about 40 years, R/o H.No.2-7711, Marikal village' Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --,EL _ _ I IANO: 2O F 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 dated 26-04-2024 in CRP No. '1366 of 2024 and dismiss the civil Revision Petition and pass IANO:1O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ln the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the 0.S No. 62 of 2018 on the file of the '1 Additional Junior Civil Judge, At Nagarkurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: JILLELLA RAJESWARA RAo The Court made the following: ORDER v 3 HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.03.2024 in I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil fudge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and where under the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) read with section 151 0f CPC and Rule 28 0f Civil Rules of Practice was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the Present Civil Revision petition are that petitioners filed a suit in o.s.No.62 of 2018 for partition of suit schedule ProPerty and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed an application aide I.A-No.249 of 2024 to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as proposed defendant Nos'2 to 6 in the suit and to declare the registered sale deeds as null and void and also 4 consequential alnendments in the cause title, plaint paras and in the prayer of piaint. Respondents filed counter resisting the application. YT \

5. The trial Court ztide impugned order dated 26.03.2024 dismissed the application with an observation that suit was filed for partition and proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the sales are hit bv lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial Court also observed that as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of practice, for each relieC a separate application has to be filed, however, in the present application, petitioners have sought multip)e reliefs and therefore, same is liabte to be dismissed and thus, dismissed the application.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgments cited by the respondents reported in Ramesh Chazola a. N.Srihai and others [(2005) 3 ALD 4]; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon o. Nabi Hassan Saheb anil another [(2004) 1 SCC 7911; Saruinder Singh o. Dalip Singh anil others [(1996) S SCC S3g], which have no application to the facts of the present case since in the said cases, the pendente /ife purchaser filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit, whereas in the present, petitioners filed an application to implead pendente /ife purchasers to prevent any 5 further alienations by seeking appropriate relief to avoid multiple litigations. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt.Ltd., v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt.Ltd., and othersl, wherein it is categorically held that a proper party is a party who though not a necessary patq and rvhose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all the matters and dispute in the suit, which squarely applies to the facts of the present case

7. Learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the trial Court erroneously came to a conclusion that for each distinct relief, a separate application has to be filed in terms of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice and in fact, Rule 28 mandates that all consequential amendments have to be sought in any application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. He would further submit that respondent No.1 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 during the pendency of the suit and therefore, they are necessary parties for proper and effective adjudication of the issues and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and same is liable to be set aside tlzozoltscc+tt l and finally, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned 6 order.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others2 ii) Brig. Chahapati Singh Dev v' Amulya Kumar Padhi and others3

9. Per contra,learned counsel for respondents would submit that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application on due appreciation of the pleadings and contentions Put-forth by both the parties eind the petitioners have failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court' He would further submit that admittedly, petitioners have sought three distinct reliefs in a single application, which is contrary to Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice' He would further submit that the proposed parties are subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule ProPerty after filing the suit and therefore, the said transactions are clearly hit by doctrine of lis pendens in terms of Section 52 of the T.P.Act and therefore, they are not necessary parties for adjudication of the issues in the suit and thus, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the revision is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 2 (tggo) s scc slg ' zoos (s) arrara (ss) 7

10. Perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner filed I.A.No.249 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking the following reliefs: i) to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit; ii) to declare the registered sale deed No.1758/2023, dated 08.1.L.2023, 1.759/2023, dated 08.71.2023, 1760/2023 dated 08.77.2023, 7767/2023 dated 08.11.2023 and 1762/2023, d,ated 07 .71.2023 as null and void and not binding on the petitioners; and iii) consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and also in the prayer of plaint.

11. In fact, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which reads as under: "Rule 28. Amendment in pleadings:- An application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 103, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules. Provided that verbal corrections may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court." 1,2. Perusal of Rule 28 mandates that an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. 1 13 It is appropriate to refer to Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of practice, 8 which reads as under "Rule 55. There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several relief,s are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to conJine the application only to one of such relief's unless the relief's are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others.,, 1,4. Perusal of Rule 55 mandates that a separate application has to be filed for each distinct relief unress the reriefs art: consequentiar amendments. However, in the present case, the pelitioners sought multiple reliefs in a single application i.e., to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit; for consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and also in the prayer of the plaint. Petitioners are arso seeking decraration to decrare the registered sale deeds as null and void, which does not come under the purview of consequential amendments. Therefore, the petitioners ought to have filed a separate application insofar as the relief of declaration to declare the sale deeds as null and void is concerned.

15. The trial Court, though rightly dismissed the application, has not referred to Rule 55 0f the Civ Rules of practice, which is rerevant provision applicable to the application filed by the petitioners. Further, 9 the suit for partition was filed in the year 2018 and respondent No.1 executed five sale deeds in resPect of maior part of suit schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the year 2023 i.e., after filing of the suit and therefore, said transactions are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the T'P'Act'

16. Insofar as the judgment in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the facts and circumstances of the case are different with that off the Present case and therefore, the same has no application to the facts of the Present case' 1Z . In Brig.chatrapati Singh Dev (supra), the learned single Judge of erstwhile High court of Judicature, Hyderabad held that petition filed for impleadment shall also contain a Prayer for all consequential amendments and a petition without such relief should be rejected. In t 0 the present case apart from seeking consequential amendments, petitioners have also sought declaration to declare the sale deeds I I executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the Present case.

18. In Sarvinder Singh (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court held that purchasers during the pendency of the suit are neither necessary nor IO Proper party to the suit and hence, not entitled to brought on record since the said alienation during pendency of the suit is hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the T.p.Act.

19. In considered opinion of this Court, admittedly, respondent Nos.2 to 6/proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, alienations are hit by doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the r.p.Act. Further, petitioners sought for multiple reliefs in a single application, which is contrary to Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of practice and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

20. In view of above discussion, this Court docs not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the kial Court. Thus, Revision fails and is accordingly, dismissecr. There shall be no order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR r SECTION OFFICER

1. I Additional Junior Civil Judge, At Nagar Kurnool 2. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate IOPUCI 3 One CC to SRI JILLELLA RAJESWARA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/PSL I t I E Sla 1H ( (J T. JUil ?u5 2 B -.'' HIGH COURT LNA,J DATED:0910612025 ORDER CRP.No.1366 of 2024 +. DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS @)q'a