The High Court · 2025

COMMON C.T. lN BOTH C.R.P's Between: M/s Whitefield Homes Private Limited, rep by its Authorized Signatory Lakshmi Bhargavi Vutukuru, D/o V. Srinivasa Rao, Aged.38 years, Occ.Assistant Manager R./o Hyderabad, ...REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS AND

1. M. Yadagiri, S/o Sailu, Aged about 48 years, Occ.Business. 2. K.Venugopal, S/o Not known, Aged about Major, Occ.Business. 3. G. Ravi Prakash Reddy, S/o Not Known, Aged about Major, Occ.Business. 4. Bogamula Rajamani, D/o Late Bogamula Mani Bai Aged about 66 years, -5. M. Narsing Rao, S/o M. Sailu, Aged about 41 years, Occ.Business. 6. Aarti Waran, Wo Ananth Waran, Aged about 65 years, Occ.Household. 7. Thakur Anrar Singh, S/o T. Seeta Ram Singh, Aged about 81 years, Occ.Housewife. Occ.Business.

8. Nimmagadda Nalini, Wo Rama Krishna, Aged about 38 years, 9. Nimmagadda Rama Krishna, S/o Not known, Aged about 46 years, Occ.Housewife Occ.Business.

10.Veeru Bhotla Venkata Naga Kanaka Viswanath, S/o Sri Venkata Seshagiri

11. Nimmagadda Venugopal, S/o Dakshina Murthy, Aged about 48 years, Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ.Business- occ-Business' ...RE''oNDENTS/DEFENDANTS 'l2.Union Bank of lndia, Gudivada Branch, Eluru Road, l(rishna District, A.p. represented by its Branch Manager. (Respondent Nos.1 to 11 are no[ necessary parties to this C.R.p) ...RESPONDENTS/PROPOS ED DEFENDANT NO.1 2 Counsel for ttre Petitioner : SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHT Counsel for the Respondents: - lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s in C.R.P.No.2638 of 2025 : Petition under section 151 cPc praylng that in the circumstances stated. in the aftidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o. S. No. 826 ot 2013 on the filer of Hon'ble tt Additional Chidf Judge, City.Civil Court, At Hyderabad. Counsel for ttre Petitioner in both C.R.Ps : SRI KIRAN pALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THC HONOU RAB s RI 7US cEP.SAM KO SHY LRE o 2636 26 2 colrtMo ORDER: Heard Mr. Kiran Palamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 01.05.2025, in I.A.Nos.2715 and 2716 of 2O24 in O.S.No.826 of 20L3, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned common order; the Court below dismissed the two petitions filed by the petitioner herein, one under Order I Rule 1O of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with Section 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking for impleadment of proposed respondent No.12 Union Bank of India as a necessary party in the suit, and the other petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amending the plaint with all consequential amendments.

4. The suit is one which was instituted in th: year 2013 seeking for perpetual injunction and also for cancellation of the sale deeds. The suit is pending for almost 12 years, and it is now that the petitioner has; filed the instant two I.As. seeking for impleadment of the Union Bank of India and permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint with all consequentjal amendments.

5. The impleadment of Union Bank of India r,vas dn the ground that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have meanwhile sotdthe property to the defendant Nos.8 to 11 and defendant Nos.g to 11 have further mortgagied the property with Union Bank of Inclia as there was a defautt in rep;ryment of loan with the Union Bant: of India and uhion Bank of India initiating SARFAESI proceeding:; and also seeking amendment ol'the p[aint with all consequential arrendments.

6. At the c,utset, this Court is of the opiniorn that taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the ccrurt below in the impugned comrnon order, more particularly in paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 26, the same is a weH-reasoned order with eril justifications for not altowing the two LAs. filed by the petitioner herein. Page 3 ot 3

7. Further, a plain reading of the two judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Othersl and Central Bank of India and Another vs. prabha Jain and Others2 would go to show that the said judgments were decided under an entirely different contextual backdrop, unlike in the present case and also unlike the nature of relief sought for in the suit which is pending before the Court below'

8. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that no strong case for interference has been made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court' The Civil Revision Petitions thus fail, and are accordingly, dismissed'

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' ,,TRUE C,OPYII . JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGIS ECTION OFFICER To, v

1. The !l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Kiran Palakurthi ,Advocate (OPUC) 3. Two CD Copies Ks/gh l .\ ',rc.N.. _<'r\' 'o',), 20fr .l il i. .,,/ ,, i HIGH COURT DATED:0Tl0Bt2O2S ,-tl' 1E OIT .) 3 .J I ) COMMON ORDER CRP.No.2636 AND 2638 ot zOZs Dismissing the C.R.ps At the stage of admission Without costs. , 4^. gy'o