The High Court · 2025

...PETI1ONERS/PLAINTIFFS 1 to 4 AND 1 2 3 4 5 Smt lsrathunnsa Begum, Wo Late MD. Afzal Khan, Aged about.41 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H. No. 1 9-3 -525161 1, Jahanuma lancer, Falaknuma Charminar, Hyderabad-63. Abdul Sattar Khan, S/o Late Md. Afzal Khan, Aged about. 25 years, Occ. Private Jobs, R/o. H. No.19-3- 5251611, Jahanum-a, lancer Charininar Hyderabad-63. Humera Khatoon, D/o Late Md. Afzal Khan, Aged about.23 years, Occ. Student - Degree, R/o.H.No.1 9-3-52516t1,iah?numa, lanceiFalaknuma Charminai, Hyderabad-63. Abdul Rahman Khan, S/o Late Md. Afzal Khan, Aged about. 20 years, Occ. Student- degree, R/o.H.No.19-3-5251611,Jahanuria Charminar, Hyderabad-63. lancer Falai<numa Hasan Ali Khan, S/o Late Fazale Rassol Khan, Aged about. 64 years, Occ. ldeal/health Problem, R/o H.No.'lB-1 2 -418l)n4OfA, Omer Cotoriy, Hafezbabanagar, Chandrayana Gutta, Hyd . - 6 Gulaml\/ohammld K.!an, S_lo_Lqte Fazale Rassol Khan, Aged about.53 y9a1s, pcc. Job, R/o.H.No .20-7-242tN1, eazipura, Onai it6agh, Cf,rrrntnar, Hyderabad-65. 7. Smt.Shahzadi B Occ. Housewife, Hyderabad-65. S/o Late Fazale Rassol Khan, Aq,:d about. 76 vears No.20-7 -242t Nl, Qazipura, Dha-r r ikabag h, Chdrm inir 8 smt. Rizwana shaheen, wo Mohammad rnayathuilah K,ran, D/o rate Fazare Rassol Khan Aged about._53 years, O-c. HouLewite, arc a No ioi-zaiiiii e az i p u ra, D h a n-i ka b a s h, c h; i; i n ;i iliJ" ir-oiir:o s egum, R/o H

9. smt Afzal Khatoon, wo Mohammad Atzar Dro Late Fazare Rassor Khan Aoed *"q q1 years.,Occ..Housewife, R/o.H No 2o_7-zizir c, Aii,pui-"'-' unantKabagh, Charminar, Hyderabad-65. ....RESPoNDENTS/IMPLEAD PLAINTIFFS 5 to 13

10. Vattela Malle^s,ha S/o Late.. Komaraiah, Aged About. g1 \ ears, Occ. Agflcutrure, K/o. Shangiguda(V), Shamshabad(M) R.R Dist. ll.Vattela.Sha$.rr"fn, S/o Late. Komaraiah, Aged About. ,'0 years, Occ. Agncutrure, H/o. Shangiguda(V), Shamshabad(M), R.R.D,st. 12 Ylttell!11lesha S^/o Naraygn?, 4g9q {bqu! 48 years , )cc Asricutture, R/o. Shangiguda(V), Sham3habaO jtvty, R.R.Dist.

13. M. Yadi Reddy, S/o Rushi Reddy, Ag.ed About. Tg years Occ Agriculture, R/o. Uppari pdtty (v), Rajenoerni'gai1nal, n. n. oi.t

14.8., Sanjeev Reddy, S/o.yadi Reddy, 4ggd4bout years, ( )cc Not Known, R:/o. Uppa( paily'(V), RajendernagiirlMy, n. n -Oist.

15.Y. Mohan Reddy, S/o Su.kka.Reddy, {-sedlpo.ut years ,()cc Not Known, R/o. Uppari paili V), Rajendernaghr ttfit,-n.n.OLt

16.T.Yadi Re_ddy, S/o Late.Bal Reddy, AgedAbout years, O:c. Not Known, R/o. Uppari patty (V), Rajendernagar 1wi;, R.n.Oisi

17.S.Subhash Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Aged About years,Occ. Not Known, R/o. Uppiri paily (V), RajendernagZi (Hll-), h.n Oi.,

18. K.R.Pravee!. S/o. K.S.Ratn.am,-Aged About. 40 years, Or:c. 1161 Known, R/o. Budvel (V), Rajendernagar (M) R.R.Dist

19. K.R.Pramood, S/o. K.S.Ratn-am,Aged About. 39 years ,O:c. Not Known, R/o. Budvel ftf, Rajendernagar (M), R.R. Dist.

20. P.Vishnu V_ardhan, S/o. _Late p.Satyam, Aged About. 70 y,:ars, Occ. Business, R/o. ptot. No.266/A/8, MLA Coi6;t, Ro;o.rrro r z. tianjri, ttitt., Hvd

21. Smt-P. Sandhya, Wo p.Vishnu Vardhan, Aged About. 65 /ears, Occ. Business R/o.-prot.No.266/4/8, MLA coibni, noio r.rb -iz arr-iiiJHirs, Hyd.

22. P.Mridulla, D/o p. Vishnu yqOl,rn, Aged About. 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. ptot. No.266/A/8, MLA Cotony, nloao. l.ro lile";i";, Hili;, Hfi.'-"", 23.Mitta Rajinikanth Reddy, S/oR?ghava Reddy, Aged Abour 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. j-4-822, eia ratnpurA'HVdl -

24. Smt.Karani Emelia, Wo. Karani Savanna Puthainum, Aoed About. 59 years ,Occ. House wife, R/o. Budvel (V), ftijendernagar (tvt), R.R.Dist 25.Mitta [aghava Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged About. 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-4-877, Bharstlrpua, Hyd.

26.P.Niharika, D/o P.VishnuVardhan Reddy, Aged About. 39 years, Occ Business, R/o. Plot. No.266/A/8, MLR Ci:lon-y, Road.No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hvd.

27. Smt.Azami Mallik, Wo. Late.M.A.Maltik, Aged About. 59 years,Occ. {Oric_ulJug, R/o V.V.Vintage Residency, Piemises. No. 6-3-1093, FIat. No.204, Somajiguda, Hyd.

28. P.Harshavardhan, S/o. P.Vishnu Vardhan, Aged About. years, Occ. Qusiness, R/o. Plot. No.266/A/8, MLA Colony, Road. No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hvd.

29.9ajjela.Bhasqkq!_q/g Mallesh, Aged About. 60 years ,Occ. Agricutture, PJo. H.No. 2-2-1 103/978, Sanjeevafya Nagar, Golnaka, Hyd. -c

30.9ajela-Hamsav.ery,-!!l_G._Bhasakar, Aged About.52 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 2-2-1 1 $19 n 8, Sanjeevayya Nagar, Golnaka, Hyd. (Resp-ondent Nos. 10 to 30 are not necessary partii:s to this civil revision-petition and no relief is being sought against them.) ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT No. ,t to 2i lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 proceedlngs in OS No. 318 of 2021 on the file of the Honourable Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed iri support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dt. 2610612023 in lA No. 471 ol 2023 in OS No. 318 ol 2021 on the file of the Honourable Additional Senior civil Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI S NAGESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: B SRINATH The Court made the following: ORDER / - {d HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVTL REVISION PETITION No.2444 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed aggri,:ved by the order, dated 26.06.2023 in I.A.No.47l o 2023 in O.S.No.318 of 2O2l passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

2. Heard Ms.K.Gayatri, learned counsel r,:presenting Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the pe,_itioners on record, Sri B.Sreenath, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.l to !), however, there is no representation on his behalf. I,lespondent Nos.10 to 30 are not necessarl parties.

3. The petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and. respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein are proposed plaintiff Nos.5 to 13, respondent Nos.10 to 3O are the defendzrnts in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 2 LNA, J C.R.P.No.2444 of 2023

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit against the defendants to declare the sale deed dated 22.11.1988, as null and void and consequent relief of perpetual injunction. While the suit was pending for adjudication, respondent Nos.1 to t herein Iiled an application uide l.A.No.47 1 ol 2023 to implead them as parties to the suit. The trial court uide impugned order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the application with the following observations: "The suit is frled for alteration of entries in revenue records and pahanies in respect of survey numbers as mentioned in the plaint schedule from 1954 onwards and also to direct the Defendant No.1 and his subordinate officials to implead the Judgment of this court. Since, there is no counter from other side and as the suit is hled for rectification of entries in revenue records right from 1954 and in view of the plea of WiIl deed executed by the ,original pattedar, I feel the Petitioners zrre necessary and proper parties. Hence, the petition is allowed and the Petitioners are ordered to be parties impleaded as Plaintiffs No.5 to l3"

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.06.2023, the present revision is filed.

6. karned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application came up for hearing initially on 14.06.2023 and the plaintiffs have sought time to lile counter-afhdavit and on their request the matter was posted to 20.06.2023 & - {O 3 LNA, J C.R.P.Nc .2444 of 2023 On 20.06.2023, counter could not be liled and therefore, sought time to file counter, however, the trial C,)urt instead of granting time, disposed of the application erroneously. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners wo rld further submit that the suit was filed to declare the sale deed, dated 22.1 1.1988, as null and void and also fc,r perpetual injunction, whereas, the trial court has atlowed the application with an observation that the suit is filed for alteration of entries in the revenue records an I pahanies from 1954 onwards, which is in fact contrar5r to the record. She would further submit that the matte - may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjuCication so that the petitioners hereirr can file counter-aJ.,idavit and contest the application and the trial Court may re directed to adjudicate the application on merits.

8. A Perusal of record would disclose that the petitioners herein have filed a suit to declare the sale c;eed dated

22.11.1988, as null and void and for perpetual .njunction, whereas, in the impugned order, dated 26.06 2023, the trial_Court has observed that the suit is frled for alteration -)-" 4 LNA, J C. R.P. No.2444 of 2023 .- \l of entries in the revenue records and pahanies in respect of the suit schedule properties, which is factually incorrect, contrary to the record. The trial Court disposed of the said I.A. with an observation that no counter-afhdavit was filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners to file counter-affldavit and to contest the matter.

9. Perusal of the impugned order indicate that the trial Court failed to record reasons as to whether the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit for adjudication. Further, the observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order that the suit is hled for alteration of entries in the revenue records and pahanies in respect of survey number are erroneous and contrary to the record, in fact the suit is filed to declare the registered documents bearing Nos.3777l 1988, dated 22.1 1.1999, 486/1996, dated 06.06.1996, 485/1996, dated

06.06.1996, 69/1995, dated 20.06.1995 and 69/rgg5, - l1^ 5 LNA, J C.R.P.N >.2444 of 2023 dated 20.06.1995, as null and voidrwhich shows that the trial Court passed the impugned order mechan,cal1y.

10. In view of the above discussion, in thc. considered opinion of this Court, the impugned <;rder dated

26.03.2023 is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The application uide I.A.No.47 I o'2023 in O.S.No.3l8 of 2O2l is remanded back to the tr;aI Court for fresh adjudication and the trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioners herein to frle counter- aftidavit and thereafter, dispose of the matter on merits by duly affording opportunity of hearing to both tht, parties. 1 1 . With the above observations, the Civ il Revision Petit jon is disposcd of. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pen,1ing, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S,d/. A.V.S. PRASAD SIEiTANT REGISTRAR Aq .-.- ,SECTION OFFICER s Jrrdge Court, Ranga to''t. ooo,,,onal Senior Civil Judqe cum Additionat Sessiii Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam.

2. One CC to SRI S NAGESH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI B SRINATH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ SS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:3 0l04t10.2s ORDER CRP.No.2444 ot 2023 ) 31I'lE 5y4 t: c 13 ,lut zo6 \\ o :) \r, r, \\o \z/v l- DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6 w 15\6ls'(