✦ High Court of India · 17 Dec 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 17 Dec 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
17 Dec 2025
Length
1,520 words

R. R. District-500047. 2. Smt. Hemalatha. W/o Housewife, R/o H.No. 500017. B.Nageshwar Rao, aged about 47 years, Occ. 12-14-231, Vinobha Nagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad-

3. Smt. M.sangeetha Latha, Wo. Sanlay Laxman Rao, aged about .3-8..ye.ap' Occ. Housdwife, R/o. H.No. 14-488/2, Mallikariuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri Mandal, R. R. District-500047 4 Smt. K. B. Laxmi, W/o. Hanumantha Rao, aged about 51 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No. 19-2211 , Plol No. 187, Gowtham Nagar, Malkajgiri, Malkajgiri Mandal, R.R Diskict-500047

5. Smt Mary Latha, W/o. Peter Paul, aged about 42, years, Occ: Housewife, R:/o' H.No. 10--5-688. Tukaramgate. Secunderabad- 500047

6. Mr. Manko, S/0. Not known, aged about 39 years, R/o. H.No. 10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad- 500047.

7. Mr. Shiv Kumar alias Chikki, S/o. Not known, aged about 37 years, Occ. Proprietor, R/o. H.No. 10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad- 500047. i I i ! I t

8. Mr. Gulab Chand, S/o Solanki, aged about 44 years ( cc. Proprietor, R/o. H.No. 10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad- 500047 (Respondents 6 to 8 are not necessary Parties to this re\ i ion petition). ...RESPONDENT/S lA NO: 1 OF 202s Between: Smt. Kamini Lata d/o Late Kamini Pochayya aged about 4 t years Occupation house wife R/o H.No.10-5'688/a, tukkaram gate Lalagudasectrtr erabad AND ...PROPOSED F ITITIONER in CRP

1. Narayana Ragi, S/o. R. Satyanarayana, Aged about 66 )1 ars, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 44-212, Jawahar nagar, tvloulali. Malkajgiri. H / erabad. (main Petitioner in CRP.No.3059 OF 2024)

2. Smt G.Dhanalatha. W/o. G.Dinakar, aged about 44 ye. s, Occ. Housewife, R/0. H.No. 18-440 Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkalgiri lvlalkaigiri Mandal, R. R. Distnct-500047 3. Smt. Hemalatha, Wo Housewife, R/o. H. No. 50001 7 B.Nageshwar Rao, aged abc )l 47 years, Occ. 12-14-231 , Vinobha Nagar Lala )et, Secunderabad-

4. Smt. M.Sangeetha Latha, W/o. San1ay Laxman Rao, € ( 3d about 38 years, Occ: Housewife, R/0. H-No. 14-48812. Mallikarlunir Nagar, Ivlalkajgiri, Malkajgiri lr/andal, R R District-500047.

5. Smt. K.B.Laxmi, W/o Hanumantha Rao, aged ac,t rt 51 years, Occ: . Advocate, R/o. H.No 19-2211, Plot No. 187, Gowthar Nagar, It/lalkajgiri, Malkalgiri Mandal, R. R. District-500047.

6. Smt Mary Latha, Wo Peter Paul, aged about 42 years. ( cc: Housewife, R/o. H.No.'10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad- 500047

7. Mr. Manko, S/o. Not known, aged about 39 years, Il c. H.No. 10-5-688, Tukaramgate. Secunderabad- 500047.

8. Mr. Shiv Kumar alias Chikki, S/o. Not known, aged . t lut 37 years, Occ. Proprietor, R/o. H.No. 10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunder€ lad- 500047.

9. Mr. Gulab Chand, S/o. Solanki, aged aboui 44 years, ( cc: Proprietor, R/o. H No 10-5-688, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad- 500047 (Respondents 6 to 8 are not necessary Parties to this reri ion petition). ...RESi ,ONDENTS IN CRP Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., praying that r the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petrtion. the I igh Court may be pleased to rmpiead the proposed petitioner as petitioner No. 2 in CRP No. 3059 of 2024 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petrtion under Section 151 of 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 proceedings in O.S.No. 81 of 2008 on the file of Hon'ble XllAddrtional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner in CRP and respondent No.1 and Proposed petitioner in l.A.NO.'l OF 2025 and :Sri. Didugu Gopala Krishna Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 in CRP and respondent 2 to 4 in l.A.No.1 of 2025 : Sri G Ravi Chandran The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEIr.NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI -.{ YARA r.A.NO.1 0F 2025 IN/AND CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NO.3059 ol 2024 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 I.A.No. 1 of 2025 Bctu'celr Smt. Kamini Lata Proposed petrti,r - :r in CRP Naral.ana Ragi zrnd B others . - . Resn: r d ents C.R.P.No.3O59 of 2024 Betr.r,cen N aral-ana R.agi Smt. G. Dhanalatha and 7 others )etitioner iespondents COMMON ORDER:

1. I{eard Mr. D. Gopala Krishna, learned c, unsel for the revision petitioner as w,ell as proposed party ar I Mr. G. Ravi Chandran, leam ed counsel for respondent Nos. J to 3 / plaintiff Nos.2 to jl. Perused the record- 2 2 The Civil Revision petitron is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.l'178 of 2023 in I.A.No.B96 of 2016 in O.S.No8i ol 2O0B on ll're file of the XII Additional Cl-rief Judge, Citl Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short 'the Trial Court'), u'herein, a petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead tl-re revision petitioner as defendant No.5, has been dismissed.

3. The I.A.No.7 of 2025 is filed by the proposed petitioner to implead her as revision petitioner No.2 in the Civil Revision Petition claiming to be absolutc o\\'ner of the property bearing H.No.10-5 688, 10-5-688/a, consisting ol ground, first and second floor in Srr.No.S4B/ 1, admeasuring 105 sq.yds., nith total build up area of 2415 sq.ft., situated at Tukkaram Gate, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. The proposecl revlslon petitioner purchased the petition schedule property vide document No.451 of 2025, dated 13.02.2025 4 The learned counsel for the proposed revision petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Phoolchand and another v. Gopal Lalr, r,vherein, it is held as follows: ' AIR 1967 sc 1470 - 3 "7. We are of opinion that there is nothi Codc oi Crvil Procedure r,vhich prohibrts thr: 1 rnore thun onc preliminary decree if cir<:rr justil-r tirc same ancl th:rt rt ma1' bc neccss,r - pirrticuLrr'1.r in partitior) suits when . prelinrirrrrn decree some p:rrtics dic ancl othe r par tiris arc rhereby' augmented. We har said thaL it is not disputed that in partitior court cllr ckr so evcn aller the preliminara p:rssed." rg iil the assrng of nstzlnces to do so i-te r the harcs of : already suits the lcclce is

5. The original revision petitioner died on 1' 02 2025. The revision petitioncr claims that respondent Nos. to ,1/plaintiffs have no right, tiLle or interest in the schedule pr )pert\r and the partition suil- liled b1' respondent Nos.1 o 4 is not maintainable 6 When the matter was at the stage fina-1 decree proccedings i.e. after a preliminary decree () Ilartition passed in thc main suit, a petition vide I.A.No. 1. 78 of 2023 in \vas I.A.No.896 ol 2016 in O.S.No.S1 of 2OO8 u:r filed by the deceased Nara_r:rna Ragi to implead her as pendente lite purchaser. Said I.A '"i,as dismissed vide impugr r d order dated 24 .06.2024 . Once the revision petitioner died i r the month of February, 2025 and no steps are taken till the fi ng of implead I.A.No.I ol 2025, due to passage of (95) days p<riod, the Civil Revision Petition is 1iable to be abated { { 4 7 . The proposed revision petitioner in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 has to get herself impleaded in the final clecree proceedings or initiate suitable proceedings challenging the iudgment and dccree passcd in O.S.No.81 of 2008. Thc legal ralio lelid clou.rr in Phoolchand's case (supra) is about thc passing of number of preliminary decrees, whereas, in tl-re rnst;rrtt c:rsc, the originerl reYision petitioner died and the Civil Revisior.r Petition $.as abated. Therefore, the judgment in Phoolchand's case (supra) does not come to the aid of the revision pctitioner. The proposcd rcr,ision petitioner cannot get herself implcadecl in an abated Cn il Revision Petition. Thcrc are no mcrits in thc petitron ancl the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintarnable 8 In the result, this Civil Revision Pctition is dismissed as abated. Consequentiy, the I.A.No.l of 2r)25 is dismissed as not maintainable Pending miscellaneous applications, if an-r', shall stand closed. No costs \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To t, '1 . The Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Crvil Court' Secunderabad z o"L CCt" Sri. Didugu gopala Krishna, Advocate IOPUC] 5 il;6c i" sti o nrii ciinoran, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies t. Pr/PSL ,..:=F-:-:M HIGH COURT DATED: 1711212025 .l , l COMMON ORDER l.A.No. 1 OF 2025 IN/AND CRP.No.3059 ot 2024 /-l :I r'l OF ..'li Q 26 i:'.tiil[ t DEI: ":''-, i DISMISSING THE CRP AS ABATED AN: DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 OF 2025

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments