The High Court · 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 the Original Suit, i.e. in 0 S.No.53 of 2O17 on the file of the Junior Civii Judge-cum-Jud icial Magistrate of First Class, at Zaheerabad. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRt. GURRALA ARUN Counsel for the Respondent NO.1:SRl' B JITHENDER Counsel for the Respondent NO'2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER 1'IIT], HONOTJRABLE, SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA C IV I t, RE,VISION PETITIO N No.l649 of2025 oRDEII: I leard Sri (i. Arun, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. .lithender, leamed counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record. l. l-his ('ivil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated ll.()8.101.1 passed by the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, ('Trial (-rrurt'). in I.A.No.8l5 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017, wherein the petition Illcd rrnder'Order'I Rule l0 (2)read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. by the l)etitioner herein to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit, has been disnrisse'cl .1. 'l lre brief lacts of the case are that respondent No.l herein filed suit auairrst respondent No.2 herein for declaration of title, recovery ol possession and correction of relevant entries in house tax revision register firr rlre year 1998-99 of Gram panchayath of Ranjole Village. During pcnde ,c.v .f'rhc' said suit respondent No.2 herein executed a gift settrement dccd bearine documenr No.80g7/2021, dated29.ll.2O2l in fa,",our o[.the petrti.ner hcrei,. who is none other than his son. The petitioner claims to acquired rights in the suit schedure prope4y under the aforesaid 'a'e ( t I I I I I I I l I l I ! I RY..I cRP_1649 ?02s registered gift settlement deed and therefore, he is necessary party to the suit, as such filed the implead petition, which is under revision.

4. Respondent No.l herein opposed the implead petition alleging thar respondent No.2 is not lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he has no right and title to transfer the said prope(y to his son. [t is further alleged that only to protract the litigation and to harass respondent No.l fictional and illegal documents are created. The evidence of plaintifflrespondent No.l herein was closed and matter came up lor evidence of defendant/respondent No.2 herein and after said evidence rlas closed on 27 -02-2022 and when the matter stood posted for argumcnts on

25.07.2024,the implead petition under revision is filed by the petitioncr by colluding with respondent No2. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is bound by the outcome of the suit under Section 52 ol the 'l ransf-er of' Property Act, 1882, es a pendmte /jre transferee.

5. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned -I.rial (.tlurt dismissed the implead petition. Aggrieved by the same, the prcsctlt rer' isitit't petition is preferred. tn the grounds of revision, the petitioner reiterated that hc actltrired

6. riglgs in the suit schedule property under the gift settlernent deed liom his father under a document, which is registered, and the Trial CoLrrt t'ailcd to I \ I RY.J cRP 1649 2025 Considerthesaiddocument.Itisurgedthatthepetitionwasdismissedby the Trial Court on the sole ground that the petition to implead was filed at a belated stage to prorract proceedings. It is pleaded that the direct interest of the petirioner in the suit schedule property outweighs the delay in the disposal of the suit. Further, as per Order I Rule l0 of the C'P'C', an irnpteacl petirion can be preferred at any stage of the suit proceedings and discrerion is bestowed on the court to allow or reject the said application. There is no specilication about at what stage the implead petition has to be filed. In l'act, the imptead petition can be filed even at appellate stage. It is Iurher pleaded that in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. the -l'rial Court held that neither party can deal with the suit schedule prope r1), in anv manner when the same is pending and it is also held that thc petitione.r had knowledge about the pendency of the suit, as such the irrrplead pctition was dismissed. It is pleaded that the theory of dominus lrlrr.s carrnor bc oversrretched while impleading parties when their rights are involred. It is also pleaded that the petitioner cannot be bound by the dccree rvithout having opportunity of being heard. The petitioner is an l-.nqirrecr by prolession and is residing at Hyderabad and did not have I knouietigc about suit between respondent Nos.l and 2 pending before the C.urrs ar Za^eerabad. On the basis of the aforementioned, it is prayed to 3 RY..I cRP_1649_202_5 set aside the impugned order and irnplead the petitioner as defendant No.2 in the suit.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 has transferred the.suit schedule property in the name of the petitioner, who is his son, since the petitioner has acquired rights over the suit schedule property, he is a necessary party without whom an effective decree cannot be passed. Further, it is argued that for implementation ol the decree. if' any passed, the presence of the petitioner is necessary. It is further argued that it is necessary to implead the petitioner in order to enable hinr to eflectively defend his rights over the suit schedule property. Respondertt No.2 having transferred the property in the name of the petitioner nra) n()l have any interest and therefor€, it is necessary to bring the petitioner otr record as delendant No.2. with respect to delay in filing the irllpleeti petition, it is argued that Order I Rule l0 of the C'P'C' does not prcvcrrt filing olthe implead petition at a belated stage' In fact' an inrplcad petitiort can even be fited at the stage of appear as welt by the parties. who rrc.luire interest during the pendency oftlre suit or appeal' In the instant casc' thd petitioner acquired righs during the pendency of the suit and thcrelirre' hc is entitled to be impleaded as proposed defendant No'2 in the suit' I I 4 I RY'J cRP 1649 2025 In response, leamed counsel for respondent No'l argued that the 8. document which fonns the basis for filing of the implead petition i'e'' gift settlement deed bearing document No'8087/2021' dated 29'll'2021' was never produced beiore the Trial Court while moving the interlocutory application which is undcr revision' It is argued that there isno prima facie case ol' impleading the petitioner, as the gift settlement deed under which Therefore, it is argued that the rights are clairned' was never produced' there are no merits in the revision petition' g. The lacts that can be ascertained from the record are that the suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession was filed by respondent No. I against respondent No-2 in the year 2017. During the pendency of the said suit, when recording of evidence was in progress, respondent No.2 executed registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.8087/2021. dated l9.l 1.202 t, in favour of his son (petitioner herein). The petiricrner w.aited from 2021 to upto the year 2024 to file the implead petition, bi thcn the rec.rding ol'evidence was completed and the matter was at the stage ol'arguments. I l I IO It is pcrtinent ro note that respondent No.2, who has been contesting the suir fionr rhc vear 2017 having deemed it necessary to execute the gift settleinent cleed ought to have informed h rs son about the pendency ofthe \ \ 5 I RY.J cRP 1649 2025 It is not possible that respondent No.2 after executing the gift sult. settlement deed in the year 2021 did not inform the petitioner about the pendency of the suit till the year 2024. The filing of the implead petition at belated stage is not about stage of the proceedings, but the time pcriod taken from the year 2021 to 2024 for filing the petition. For reasons bcst known, the petitioner has chosen to file the implead petition almost afier gap ol four years after acquiring rights under the gift settlement deed. I l. Further, the petitioner did not produce the registered gift settlemer.rt deed bearing document No.8087/2021, dated 29.11.2021, before the Tlial Court. In wake of failure to produce the document, the Trial Court rvas expected to implead the petitioner merely on the basis of pleadings in the affidavit about actiuiring rights over the suit schedule property under thc gifl settlement deed. The contention of the petitioner that he is necessarr party and that he should be granted an opportunity to defend himselt secrr" hallow and concocted. Respondent No.2, who is original dcler-rdant. is none other than the t'ather of the petitioner. Respondent No.l ri es interested in passing the suit schedule property to his son and such being the case. respondent No.2 is expected to contest the suit in tme spirit arrd not lose interest as thc rights of his son in the suit schedule property are tc) be defended. Even in the absence of the petitioner herein, the original 6 1 RY,J cRP 1649 2025 defendant, who is his father, is competent to defend the rights of his son. In any case, under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a decree if any passed would be binding on the petitioner. To sum up, no document is produced to prove prima facie case and since original defendant i.e.,, respondent No.2 is capable of defending rights of the petitioner, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.815 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, Zaheerabad. Sanga Reddy District.

1. The Cout of Junior Civil Judge-CUM-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 2. One CC to SRI GURRAT-A ARUN Advocate topucl -' 3. One CC to SRt. B JTTHFNDER Advocate toplJal- 4. Two CD Copies 4g HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER CRP.No.1649 of 2025 I I o C) thL,S rAt € 3 1 JAli 7f17fi * * DISMISSING THE ClVIL REVISION PETTTION ') 1' \t1 l I I I