M/s. MPM Hotels Limited v. 1. S.mt. Ghousunnisa Begum,, died

Petition rrnder 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 pass order stalring all further proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.1012015 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above civil revision petition, in the interest of jirstice. Counsel for the, Petitioner(s):SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondents: M. RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA CIVIL REVISION N No.2974 of 2o24 12th DAY OF DECEMBER. 2025 Betu,een: M/s.MPM Hotels Limited, Hyderabad AND Mrs.Ghousunnisa Begum, Hyderabad and others ...petitioner ..respondents ORDER: F{eard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated O1.O2.2O24 rn I.A. No. 2289 of 2022 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of learned tX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the trial Court'), rvherein, the petition filed under Order I Rule i0(2) and (4) of the CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rule of Practice and Section 151 of the cPC, with a prayer to implead the petitioner 2 RY,J crp _2974_2024 and respondent No. 11 as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and to delete the paragraph No. 19 of the plaint and to substitute the same u,ith a fresh paragraph, has been allo',l,ed.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the Civil Revision Petition E.re rhat the deceased respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have liled suit in o.S. No. 10 of 2ols for delivery of vacant pr:aceful possession of 1373.5 square feet of super built-up commercial area along ',vith proportional undivided share of land in the building being constructed'in the suit schedule property towards their share in the agreed 11,0OO square feet in terms of the sale deed bearing document No. 4643 of 1995 clated 11.08.1995 and agreement dated 11.o8.1995 and also under document No. 4124 of 2oog dated

14.O.9.2OO3. During pendency of the suit, the deceased respondent No. 1 died ancl her LR's rvere brought on record as the respondent Nos. 4 to B. The c efendants remain ed ex parte in the suit and the matter was coming ul) for evidence of p.w. 1. Till that point of time the responden'-s/plaintiffs were under the impression that the respondent No. 7 is ccnstructing the building over the suit schedule property. However, subsequentty they have learnt that the respondent No.9 has transferred the rights to M/s. MpM Hotels Limited (earlier M/s. MMVL Hotels Limited) under registered sale deed document No. 1gs4 of ! / 3 ",p-zsz+-tdzl 2OO7, alleging that it has become owner of the suit schedule property under sale deeds bearing document Nos. 2783 of 2OOO and 33O4 of

2000. The said M/s.MPM Hotels Limited, has further created third party interest by executing a development agreement-cum-GPA bearing document No. 176 of 2016 in favour of Mls. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited. On the basis of said development agreement, M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, started construction of a 15 storied commercial complex in the suit schedule property. The. Respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded that M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are claiming interest over the situated property in which the original defendants have undertaken to allot 11,000 square feet of commercial space with proportionate und.ivid.ed share of the land. The M/s.MPM Hotels Limited"and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited are pendent lite transferees and they are likely to resist the decree on the pretext that they are not parties to the suit and as such they are not bound by the decree. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and since M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are necessary parties for the purpose of implementing the decree, the implead petition is filed to implead the proposed parties as tkrey defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. When said application t"\l 4 RY,J crp_2974_2O24 came up for hearing, the trial Court has passed the following docket order date:d O1.O2.2024: "It is seen that respondent I/o.3 counter already treated as nil a.nd sfeps of respondent No.4 alreadg taken and" respondent No.4 is alrea.dg been sef ex parte. Heard tLte petiti<tner counsel. The LA. is allowed and respondent /[o.3 and respondent No.4 be impleaded as defendart No.3 and defendant No.4 in the main suit. For carrying out amendment and Jt,ling neat copA. Call on 15.02.2O24." (rrerbatim reproduced)

4. Aggrieved by the above docket order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the respondents/plaintiffs have lost the right they hacl against the petitioner due to passage of several vears and they had no right to implead th.e petitioner and respondent No.1 1 as defendants to the suit. According to the petitioner, the relief sought against it, is time-bound and' therefore, not permissible. Further, it is pleaded that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which does not explain as to how the proposed impugned parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. In fact, the respondents/plaintiffs themselves did not make any such r:laim to implead the petitioner and the respondent No. 11. The trial tlourt has passed impugned order rvithout following the procedure in registering the application and therefore, the impugned order passr:d is a nullity ) \ / 5 RY,J crp_2974_2024

5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that the impugned order does not give any reasons'*,hatsoever for impleading the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 1 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. It is admitted that there is failure on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.11 in appearing before the Court to defend their impleadment in the main suit as defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Ho',\,ever, said situation does not give rise to any occasion for passing an order without reasoning. Learned counsel for revision petitioner referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha a. Tata Engineering and Locornotiue Compang Ltd. and othersl, wherein it is held that the Court has to be more conscious while exercising such power where the defendants fails to fiIe the written statement. Even in such circumdtances the Court must be satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved in spite of deemed admission by the defendant. The Court must give reasons for passing the judgment. However in short a party must understand what were the facts and circumstances which form the basis for the suit being decreed. In the case of Maga Deui u. Lalta Prasad2, it is held that the absence of defendant does not I 'MA.N 'uAN u lscl0270l20L3 u/sc/0r2212or4 6 RY,J crp_2974_2O24 absolve a trial Court from fully satisfyin* itself of factual and legal veracity of the plaintiffs'claim. In fact, said situation casts greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the trial Court as well as the Executing Court to be fully satisfied that the claim has to be proved and substantiated to the hilt by the plaintiff. In the case of Deepak Kapoor and. others u. Ashok D Mehta and otherss, the High court of Uttarakhand, held that a judgment pronounced under order vll Rule 10 of CPC should implicate that a Court has applied its mind on the merits of the case. [t is the dutv of Court to consider the case of the plaint.ff on merits after giving him opportunitv to adduce his evidence and the judgment pronounced under order vlll Rule 1o of the CPC rnust satis$r the requirements of Section 29 of the CPC. Lastly, in the case of Muthu kumar v. P. sundar<, the High court of Madras hetd that whether the defendants contest the suit or remains ex parte, ttren also the trial Court has a duty to follor,l' order XX Rule 4 of the CPC. On the basis aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that just as in a suit, in an interlocutory application, the Court is under obligation to give the ingredients of concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the dpcision th,:r€on and the reasons for such decision. ) 'ruaNuTuc lo)s3l2o2r ouauuTru lr .TT l2024 7 RY,J crp_2974_2024

6. In the instant case, the petition is filed under Order I Rule lO{21 and (4) of the CPC, to implead the petitioner and respondent No. 11 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. The docket order has no reference to the pleaclings of the affidavit. It is a cryptic order stating that notice is served on the implead petitioners either directly or through substituted service and proceeded to implead the parties without giving any reasoning. In viern' of the foregoing, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the LA. be remanded back to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner herein and respondent No. 11 to lile counter and contest the interlocutory application on merits.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Petition alleging that the petitioner herein and respondent No. 11 were given opportunity to contest the interlocutory application before the trial Court by serving notice. In spite of service of notice, both the proposed parties failed to appear before the Court to contest the application. Thereafter, by perusing the reasons stated in the affidavit, since the interest of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was transferred pendente lite in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 11, it has become imperative to implead them. In case, the proposed parties are not impleaded, an executable decree cannot be passed, as th.e pendente \ r I 8 RY,J <:rp_ 2974_2O24 lite trans[erees can always claim that they are not a party to the suit and there:fore they are not bound b,r' the decree. In vier,v of this tricky situation because no executable decree can be passed '*,ithout the presence of the proposed parties, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the proposed parties are the necessary parties and therefore, the trial Court has rightly impleaded them.

8. Stri<:tly speaking, the case of the petitioner ancl responclent No. 11 proposied parties does not have much strength about not being given an c,pportunity to contest the interlocutory application opposing their implr:adment. It is a fact borne by record that notice \r,as served on the petitioner herein as well as respondent No. i1. Ilowever, they have cho,sen not to appear before the court to contest the interlocutc,ry aPplication opposing their impleadment in the main case as defendumt Nos. 3 and 4. To this extent, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner about not having an opportunity to oppose the interlo<:utory application.

9. Coming to the next aspect of the failure on the part of the trial court in ,giving a reasoning, the docket order dated 01.02.2024 certainly iemonstrates that the proposed parties rvvere impleaded ( \ / 9 RY,J crp_2974_2024 without giving a single line reasoning about the need for impleading them. The trial Court ought to have given a brief reasoning about the need for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for revision petitioner though not strictly applicable to the present interlocutory application under revision, the common legal ratio laid down in all the cases is that whenever a decision is given by a Court, the same has to be on the basis of reasoning i.e., whenever adecision is made, said decision necessarily has to be supported by reasons thereof. Any party who is a litigant should be able to understand the basis for a decision delivered one \ /ay or the other. The said legal ratio is applicable to all proceedings, whether interlocutory application or main suit. It is further held in the case of Maga Deui (Suprcr)that in the absence of the contesting party, the obligation on the part of the Court to give reasoning becomes more onerous in order to do justice to the parties who are before the Court and the parties who are not before the Court. This Court also deems that a brief reason could have avoided u.nnecessary further litigation before this Court. \ \ RY,J crp__2974 -2O24 10. In 'ihe case of shorlcuntala Devi u. Maga Devi and. otherss, 10 High Court of Patna, held as follows: "6. The law is well settled that tlrc Courts haue amtrtle power to add anA person as partA in the suit if he is ne2essa.ry or proper part!/ for proper adjuclication of the ca:;e. TLrc Court is required to assigrt reusotl of ang orcler on impleadment applicatiort. Reason is the sole of justice and any judicial order passed. by the court must be speaking. An order disposing of an application ne<:essarily requires recording of reason." (verbatim reproduced)

11. In the instant case, the affidavit does contain reasons statecl bi. the respondents/plaintiffs for impleading the proposed parties, there is an obje'ction taken by the petitioner to the effect that the reliefs sought agtrinst the proposed parties are time-barred. 12. In vjeu, of the grounds raised by the revision petitioner, firstly there is a need to give reasoning for impleading the proposed parties as defendetnt Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit ancl there is a neecl to adjudicate whether the issue of whether or not the reliefs sought against the: proposed parties are time-barred. tn vie',r, of the foregoing, there is a treed to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the interlc,cutory application afresh by giving opportunity to the p"tltio.,"r trerein to file counter opposing the interlocutory application. I However, g::ven the fact that the petitioner was not diligent in filing the 'uAruu7eu I fist l2o2s I 7L RY,J crp_2974_2024 counter before the l.rial Court, costs of Rs.3,0oo/- are imposed which is payable to the High court Legal Services Authority, Telangana, within two (02) weeks from the date of this order. The petitioner herein and the respondent No. 11 are directed to file counter 'rvithin two (02) weeks from the date of communication of this order to the trial Court and in tllrn, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits. This Court has expressed no opinion about the merits of the interlocutory application or the merits of the case of revision petitioner.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad District. 2. One CC to SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. M. RAMA KRISHNA Advocate IOPUCI 4. The High Court Legal Services Authority, Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. Two CD Copies PK/PSLw HIGH CCIURT DATED:1211212025 2 e. O R DER CRP.No.2l974 of 2024 '1 rtE SIA \ 3 0g rrB itjz[ * '(1 2 i''. .:.,-..* - CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF. *o*oA Y+- 6[f,'s