The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPetitioner/Proposed Defendant No.2

2. Ali Ahmed Shareef, S/o lbrahim Shareef, Aged about 66 Years, Occ: Rtd Employee, R/o H.No. l3-1 , Khajigally, Narsapur Town and mandal, Medak District. ...RespondenURespondent No.2/Defendant 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 of all further proceedings the order and Decree dated 01-05-2024 in 1.A.No.521 of 2023 in O.S.No.83 of 2O18 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate Of First Class At Narsapur: District lt/ledak. IANO:2O F 2024 Between: safa Masiid Arabic Schcor, Rep by sri.Mohs Rasheed Ahrned s/o Ghulam N ct"b ilffi y, R3 iJ3B ll ; ?ffiX il;,; ::r:;ff:.ff i,S,1;,:[ liI" I d} H r.r.- r b _s 0 - AND ...petitioner/Respondent No.1/petitioner/proposed Defendant No.2

1. Mr.Md.Mumta;: Agriculture, R/o Medak Distric;t. A.li . S/o Late Ahmed Ali, Aged about {i3 years, Occ: H No l8-55/1, NGo,s Cotony, ft;;""r;]";,"n ji['il"rour, ...RespondenUpetitioner/Respondent No. 1/plaintiff

2. Ali Ahmed Shareef S/o lbrahim Shareef, Aged about 66 yrlars, Occ: Rtd EllglSl* R,/c H.No.13_1, Kh;;;s;ir;.';,il',Jil, ro*n and rnandar, Medak .. -RespondenuRespondent /Respondent No.2/befendant Petition unde. rsection i51.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in r;upport of the p"irtioii, inl'iiin court may )e preased to interim orders dated 12_oz-2ozq'ii ri r.iol r or 2o24 in cRp No. 2012 i?Ztiorn" Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Siva prasad Allaparthi Counsel for the Respondent No..t: Sri Narendar Jalti The Court made the following: ORDER ':.t THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.2O12 of 2o24 ORDDR: Aggrieved by the order dated Ol .O5.2O24 passed in I.A.No.521 of 2023 in O.S.No.S3 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, Medak District, the present civil revision petition is frled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case involves'a dispute over a property in N.G.O's Colony, Narsapur, Medak District. The plaintiff, Mumtaz Ali, hled a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant, claiming ownership and peaceful possession of House No.18-55/ 1 with an open site. The proposed party, Safa Masjid Arabic School, represented by Mohd Rasheed Ahmed, sought to be. added as a defendant, arguing that a portion of the disputed land, admeasuring 288 square yards, was gifted for running an Arabic school and that the plaintiff suppressed facts to obtain an injunction. The plaintiff countered that the property he claims is distinct from the school's land and denied the school's ownership claims, alleging document fabrication. The court reviewed the 2 SI(Ii,J C.R-P.No.2012 of 2024 evidence, ;Lr cluding resolutions, photographs, and RTI records, and rried in favor of adding Safa Masjid Arabic School as a defendant. allowing him to contest the case to pro [ect his claimed intt:rest in the property.

3. Ilear-c Sri Siva Prasad Allaparthi, learned counsei appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Narendar Jalli, learne I counsel appea_ring on behalf of responderrt No. 1.

4. Learn:d counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that. the decision c,f the trial Court is flawed due to a lack of consideration and incorrect application of the larv and that the trial Courl. failed to properly examine the documer: ts and circumstar,ces, ieading to a miscarriage of justtce. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in allowing the irnplead petition under Order I Rule 1O of the CpC, as rhe respcndent should have hled a separate suit instead. He contendr:d that the trial court also ignored documentary evidence, probabilities and the prima facie case of the petjtioner, which had initiall.z resuited in an injunction. He further contended that the trial Court incorrectly stated that the responde:at had not provided sufficient documents beyond an unregistered gift 3 SI(S,J C,R-P.No.2O|2 oI2024 deed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the tria-l Court by a-llowing this civil revision petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit denying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the tria'l court allowed I.A.No.521 of 2023 after hearing both sides and perusing the record, and its order is reasonable and lawful. The claim of the petitioner that the trial court failed to apply its mind is false and baseless. He submitted that , the petitioner misconceives the law stating that an interested party must hle a separate suit instead of an impleading petition. He further submitted that the trial Court correctly allowed the impleading petition, as it is settled law that an interested party can implead themselves instead of filing a separate suit. The petitioner's claim to ownership of the property is also unfounded, as they failed to produce valid documents, whereas the respondent obtained information under the RTI Act showing the property's actual extent' The respondent has a valid claim to the property, as it was gifted to Safa Masjid for conducting an Arabic School, and the decision of trial Court to allow the impleading petition is 4 sKs,J C R.P.No.2o12 of 2024 ,J3.;: supported by the law. Therefore, he prayed the Cr.rurt to dismiss the r:ivil revision petition.

6. In ttre light of the submissions made by bo th the learned cor-rnsel and a perusal of the material availerble on record, it is t:vident that the suit originally hled by the rr:vision petitioner is a simple injunction suit, allegjng that the defendant attempted to encroach upon the suit propert5r. Conversely, the respondent contends that Lhr: petitioner is using the injunction order to interfere with his prDpefty. When deciding an impleading petition, the Court must determine vrhether the proposed party is a necessary or proper partf to the suit. 7 . The c,bjective of Order I Rule I O of the Civil Pror:edure Code is to ,3nsure that all relevant parties to the dispute are brought on record, allowing the matter to be res,tlved i:r their presence. 'Ihis approach prevents inconvenience and avoids multiple legal proceedings by enabling the Court to arri,,e at a final and cornprehensive decision. Even if no direct relief is sought irgainst a proposed party, their presence may r;till be necessary f<rr the complete adjudication of the case. 5 sr(s,J C.R-P.No-2O12 of 2024 I

8. In the present case, the impleading petitioner claims thattheplaintiffisattemptingtoencroachuponhisproperty. Moreover, the petitioner is not a private individual but represents an institution, which strengthens the need for their inclusionintheSuit.Topreventmultiplelitigationsand ensureafairresolution,theadditionofthepartyisjustifred. Therefore, the order of the trial Court allowing the impleadment is legally sound, and there is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed' g. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismidsed confirming the order dated O1 O5'2O24 passed in I'A'No'S21 of 2}23,,nt O,S.No.83 of 2O18 by the learned Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Iriagistrate of First Class' Narsapur' Medak Districtl Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed. Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER District Medak.

2. One CC to Sri Siva Prasad Allaparthi, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Narendar Jalli, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kam/PSL t ilP ) l HIGH COURT DATED:18 t03t2O2S , t ORDER CRP.No.2O12 of 2024 yrf Sf,tr '( {:' q J o 2 1 ilAit 2025 z t t>ESFA - , .r(O I DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVTSION PETITION (r- @ 2t+ t;