The High Court · 2025

..Petitioner/RespondenUProposed Defendant No.2 AND 1 2 3 4 Sri. Paqadala Ramu, S/o. Late. Pagadala Laxmaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Bilsiness, Ri/o. H. No.8-5-62/89, Old Bowenpally, Near Pochamma Temple, tvlallikarjuna Colony, Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad-50001 1 . Sri. Pagadala Shreyas, S/o. Late Durga Prasad, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Busineis, R/o. H. Nio.1-2-91, Rahamath Nagar, Kazipet Mandal, Warangal Urban, Telangana-506003. Sri. Guiia Manohar Rao, S/o. Late. Veera Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ' Busine'6s, Fl/o. H. No.1-25-1 6, Plot No.37, Saibaba Colony, Sitarampuram, Near Malia Reddy Gardens, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad Hyderabad- 500011. ... Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs Smt. Katalam Rekha, Wo. Dulam Shivakrishna, Aged about 32 years, Occ. ftousewife, R/o. H. No.17-1 -382NP1391N1, Vishnupuri Colony, Karmanghat,. Ranqaredciv District-500079. Also having temporary Residence at H. No 6-14, Nag5ram, Parkal I\/andal, Warangal, Telangana-5061 64. ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant No.1 l I _i lA NO: 1 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 Suspend the lmpugned Docket Order Dt.05-09-2023 passed in lA No.419 ol 2023 in OS No.128 of 2023 on the file of ll Additional District Judge tvledchal-Malkajgiri District at [t/edchal, pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl M V RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER .THE HON,BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR /- CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2745 of 2O23 t ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05-09-2023 passed in I.A.No.419 of 2023 in O.S.No.i28 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Medhcal.

2. The petitioner herein is the proposed defendant No.2 in the suit filed by respondent Nos.l to 3 as plaintiffs against 4th respondent herein for grant of relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12-04-2021 entered into by and between respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4.

3. Petitioner contends that he is the purchaser of land to an extent of Ac.0.15 gts from the 4ft respondent under a registered salc dced executed on 3l-05-2023 while respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein claim to have filed a suit against 4th respondent seeking specific performance of the agreement sale entered into by them with respondent No.4. 2 t3!

4. It is also the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.l to 3 herein have filed I.A.No.615 of 2023 to implead the petitioner herein as defendant No.2 in the aforesaid suit and the said Interlocutory Application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Order I Rule 10 CPC is pending consideration.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.l to 3 herein having filed Interlocutory Application to implead him as proposed def-endant in the suit, have obtained an order of status quo in the underlying Interlocutory Application against the petitioner herein over the suit schedule property till disposal of Interlocutory Application filed for impleading the petitioner herein as proposed defendant without he being brought on record in the suit and also without being nrade a party in the underlying Interlocutory Application.

6. The petitioner contends that the trial Court even before adjudicating I.A.No.615 of 2023 filed to implead rhe present petitioner as a necessary pafty to the suit or not, had passed the order of status quo only against the petitioner/2nd respondent even before he is brought on record without considerins the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein by the underlying Interlocutory I I , 3 Application have sought relief against the 1't respondent/det-endant viz., the 4m respondent herein.

7. Petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in passing the irnpugned order without assigning any reasons, and thus, the impugned is an erroneous order and is against the principle of law.

8. I have taken note of contentions urged.

9. A perusal of the cause title of the impugned order shows that only 4th respondent herein is shown as respondent in the Inter'locutory Application. The petitioner herein is not shown as a party to the Interlocutory Application. However, the impugned order passed directing to rnaintain status quo reads as under: "Counter not /iled. Intcrlocutory Application U/o.I Rule l0 CPC is Jiled and pending. Howcycr, as submitted by leorned counsel arul in view of nafure of suil being a .specific perforntance and to curtail further litigotion, the respondent Aro.2ipurchaser tlirected to mdintain slatus quo over schedule property titt the disposal of lA.No.6t5 202J untl 616 202J. (.ut! with suit 04-10-2023 ".

10. It is interesting to note that though the trial Court had noted that an Intes]oc-utory Application under Order I Rule l0 CpC is 4 flled and is pending however, passed an order against a person who is not a party to the suit. Further, if such an Interlocutory Application to bring the proper parties on record is pending, the trial Court ought to have first decided the said Interlocutory Application, instead of passing the order against the proposed respondent. 1 1. Further, a reading of the Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC would also indicate that an order of injunction can be passed against a party to the suit, and since the petitioner herein is not a party to the suit on the date of passing the impugned docket order, this Court is of the view that the said order is ex facie erroneous'

12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the triat Court to first decide I.A No'615 of 2023 fi.led under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner herein as del-endant No.2 in the suit and thereaftel consider the underlying Interlocutory Application as to whether an order of injunction/s/ar us quo is to be passed against defendant No 1 in the suit as well as petitioner herein on being impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. 5

13. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No oosts.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The ll Additional District Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal 2. One CC to SRI M V RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies ADK/PS HIGH GOURT DATED:1110412025 -.<=:: ,/;n1*t tt ORDER CRP.No.2745 of 2023 ,/- . -'-' .) ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6 t-.\ ^;F)\ 2 I npn zuzs 116 .S,, A * j<) a {+