The High Court · 2025

4. B. Srikanth, S/o B.Ram Mohan, Aged about 39 years. Occ, Private Service R/o. H. No. 9 -3-47, Reg imental Bazar, Secunderabad.

5. B. Sandeep, S/o B. Ram Mohan, Aged about 37 years, Occ, Service Employmerit, R/o. H.No.9-3-47, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad. ..Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND

1. Smt N. lndira, Wo. N. Sudhakar, aged about 46 years, occ, Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 139, Durga Vihar, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad.

2. A.B. Reddy, S/o. A.L. Reddy, Aged, Major, Occ, Business, R/o Plot No.7, Sardar Vallabai Patel Poor Class Cooperative Housing Society, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad.

3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rep. by its Chief Manager, A-21 and 22,1st Floor, Meghana Complex, APIE, Adj. to Reliance Petrol Pump, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037.

4. The South Indian Bank Limited, Banjara Hills Branch, Door No. 8-26011P113 ANR Arcade, First Floor, Road No.10, Gourishankar Nagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034.

5. N. Sudhakar, S/ o. N. Sankaraiah Aged about 52 years, occ, Business R/o. Plot No. 139, Durga Vihar Tirumalgiri, Secunderabad - 500 015.

6. Secunderabad Cantonment Board, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 Rep. by its Chief Executiv Officer (Respondent No.3 was alread necessary to Respondent. No. 3 set exparte in the suit. Hence no notice is in this CRP) ... Respo ndents/Defendants lA NO: 1OF 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 trial in the suit bearing O S No. 47 of 2018, by the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the CRP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.MALLA RAO Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.MEHBOOB ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.P.YASHVARDHAN Counset for the Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2355 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 26.03,2024 passed in tA.No.1395 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed respondent No.6 as defendant No.6 in the suit was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Malla Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Venu Madhav, Iearned counsel for respondent No.l, Sri M.Mehboob Ali, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri G.P.Yashvardhan leamed counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.l to 5 are defendant Nos.l to 5, respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff No.l and during the pendency of the suit, she expired, as such, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded as her legal representatives in the suit. i 2 LNA, J CRP.No.2355 of 202a 5' Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. I is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the sarne from one Anreddy Janga Recrdy througrr a registered sale deed bearing document No.2542 of r9g0, dated 05.r r.r9g0 and had been i, peaceful possession and enjoyment of trre same; and that she submitted an application to Secunderabad cantonmcnt Board seeking permission for construction of house in the subject property by complying with all the statutory requirements including payment of fee and that Secunderabad cantonment Board, after verifoing the documents, accorded sanction for construction of house on 19.04. Lgg6, but due to paucity of funds she could not construct a house. 6. The plai,tiffs further averred that when plaintiff No.l was dispossessed frorn the suit schedule property under the guise of farse, forged and fabricated docurnents, she filed the subject suit against respondent No.l herein and others for the relief of recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. while so, on 14.12.2022, plaintiff No.2 noticed that some third parties have illegally and unauthorisedly erected blue tin sheets with brack Tarpaurin around the suit schedule property and hence, he gave written complaint to Secunderabad aJ LNA, J CRP.No.2355 of 2024 Cantonment Board to take action for removal of the said structures, but no action was taken thereon.

6.1. [t was further averred that defendant No.l, who has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, occupied the suit schedule property based on false, forged and fabricated documents and she is likely to approach Secunderabad Cantonment Board for grant of building permission; that the plaintiffs have served notice under Section 3 39 of the Cantonment Act on the Cantonment Board on 04.0 1.2023 and after expiry of statutory period from the date of said notice, application was filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead Secunderabad Cantonment Board as defendant No.6 in the suit in order to seek the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the said Board from granting permission for any construction in the suit schedule property.

7. Before the trial Court, the respondents have not contested the aforesaid application. However, the trial Court, on perusal of the record, dismissed the application with observations that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and the plaintiffs have violated Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice by seeking number of reliefs in one petition, i.e., to implead the proposed respondent as pa(ry to the suit and 4 t.NA..l CRP.No.2355 of 2021 to amend the averments in the plaint. euestioning the sarre, the present Revision Petition is filed 8' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when plaintiff No.l was illegaily dispossessed from the suit schedure property by respondent Nos.l and 2 under the guise of void and illegal documents claimed by them, she filed the subject suit for recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property based on her titre and during the pendency of the suit, on noticing that some illegal aud ttnauthorized temporary structures are raised in the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have served notice on Secunderabad cantonment Board under Section 339 of the cantonment Act, but no steps have bcen taken by the cantonment Board for removar of the said unauthorized structures. Leatned counsel further submitted that there is Iikelihood of respondent No.l approaching the cantonment Board and obtaining building permission based on false, forged and fabricated documents without discrosing the pendency of the suit and hence, the plaintiffs filed application seeking to implead Secunderabad Cantonment Board as one of the defendants in the suit in order to seek the relief of perpetual injunction restraining it from granting building permission to 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2355 o[ 2024 respondent No.1-defendant No.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Secunderabad Cantonment Board is a proper and necessary party to the suit and effoneously dismissed the irnpleadment application and hence, prayed to allow this Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. l, 2 and 4 submitted that for adjudication of /is between the parties, i.e., the rival claims of title/ownership, possession, etc., of the suit schedule property, there is no necessity or relevancy for arraying Secunderabad Cantonment Board as party to the suit and hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for impleadment of Secunderabad Cantonment Board as one of the defendants to the suit. By contending thus, learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioners have not made out a case and in fact, they failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the reliefs of recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and the defendants have set up rival 6 I.NA, J CRP.No.2355 of 2024 claims of title/ownership in respect of the suit schedure property. In the context of dispute and rival clainrs set up by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, there is no role or necessity or requirement for impleadment of Secunderabad cantonment Board as party to the suit. The praintiffs merely apprehended that there is likelihood of respondent No.l/defendant No.l approaching Secunderabad cantonment Board seeking permission for construcr.ion of buirdi'g in the suit schedule property and obtaining such perrnission based on the aileged farse, forged and fabricated documents. [n fact, such aoprehension of the plaintiffs gives rise to separate cause of action and in a suit filed seeking the reliefs as stated supra' the plaintiffs failed to show that Secunderabad Cantonment Board is a proper and necessary party to the suit for proper adjudication of the /zs between the parties to the suit. I 1. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners failed out point out any illegality or infrrmity or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this coum in exercise of its revisionary iurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The triar court has rightly dismissed the 7 LNA, J CRP.No.2355 of 2024 application and hence, the Revision Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XllAdditional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, Secunderabd 2. One CC to SRI S.MALLA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI G.P YASHVARDHAN, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL YY HIGH COURT DATED i1011012025 ORDER CRP.No.2355 of 2024 iiiE S14 lt (-) 10titm ((' f , rf) * DISMISSING THE CIUL REVISION PETITION n r"e \t -.-.^.r 6*t"