Dismissed

Arjula Indrasena Reddy v. Damera Thamas

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024CRP/2575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226, the High Court of Telangana examined an impugned order rejecting an application to implead proposed plaintiffs. The court upheld the lower court's dismissal, finding the eight-year delay unexplained and without merit, and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Arjula Indrasena Reddy Vs Damera Thamas — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY.THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND N/VENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2575 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order made in 1.A.No.511 ot 2023 in O.S.No.1O of 2O15 dated 14.06.2024 on the

¶7

file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arjula lndrasena Reddy, S/o. Bhadraiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandai, Jangaon Diskict.

¶10

Gulipelly Saritha, Wo. Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 45^years, Occ.Household, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmefta Mandal, Jangaon District

¶11

Gangula Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 60^years, Occ Household, R/o. Tharlgoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶12

Manda Jyothi, Wo. Manda Chandraiah, Aged about 29^years, Occ Household, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmefta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶13

Arjula Venugopal Reddy, S/o Purushotham Reddy, Aged 48^years, Occ Agriculture,R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶14

Brungi Rama, Wo. Shiva Kumar, Aged 54 years, Occ Household, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶15

Thallapally Ravi, Sio. Pochaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon Dishict.

¶16

Gadipally Laxmi, Wio. Malla Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon Diskict.

¶17

Gudelly Latha, Wo Madhusudhan Redd', Aged 50 years, Rl/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District

¶18

10.Arjula Laxmi, Wo. Madhusudhan Reddy, Aged 43^years, Occ Housejold,^R/o. Tharigoppula, Village. Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶19

ll.Grumalla Rajaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 55 years, Occ Agriculture,^R/o. Bothagattu Nagaram, Narmetta Mandal,Jangaon District.

¶20

Kathe Kiran, S/o. Late Samuel, Aged 40 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶21

l3.Bejugam Laxmi Narayana, S/o. Chandriah, Aged 42^yearc, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶22

14.Mashetty Venu, S o. Satyanarayana, Aged 38^years, Occ Business,^R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶23

Sirigiri Sammaiah, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 50^years, Occ Agriculture,^R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶24

'16. Sanade Pochaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon Oistrict.

¶25

l7.Vdatha Venu, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 42 years, Occ Agriculture,^R/o. Sripathipally Village of Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶26

lB.Edelly Srinivas Reddy, Sio Laxma Reddy, Aged 46^years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶27

'l9.Chiluveru Lingam, S/o- Agaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ Agriculture, Rio. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

AND

¶30

Damera Thamas, S/o. Somaiah, Aged about 47 years,

¶31

Yetelli Prabhakar, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 48 years,

¶32

Chinthala Dasu, Sio. Yellaiah, Aged about 37 years,

¶33

Yatelli lssac, S/o. Abbasailu, Aged about 47 years,

¶34

Chinthala Mallaiah, S/o. Pochaiah, Aged about 47 Years,

¶35

Yatelli Ravi, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 37 years,

¶36

Chiluveru Sampath, S/o. Pochaiah, Age 32 years, Occ. MPTC,

¶37

Mudavath Ganesh, S/o. Kishan, Aged about 28 years,

¶38

Sunkari Rajesh, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 37 years,

¶39

Damera Prabhudasu, S/o. Anandam, Aged About 40 years, All are R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶41

11.Arjula Jyothi, Wo. Madhusudhan Reddy, Aged.33 yrs, Occ Household, R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Jangaon District

¶42

... RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances 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.^'10 of 2015 on the file of the Prl, Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY

¶46

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA

¶47

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶48

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶49

Civil Revision Petition No.2575 ot 2024

¶50

ORDER:

¶51

Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisaon^{petitioners and Sri} Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counse! appearing^on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6,8 to^10.

¶52

The revision petitioners approached the^Court seekang prayer as under:

¶53

"...to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 14-06-2024 in I A^NO.511 of^{2023 in} O.S. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of the^{Honble Prl} lunior Civil Judge at Jangaon and^pass...".

¶54

The revision petitioners have filed the^{present Civil} Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated^14.06.2024 passed in I.A. No. 511 of 2023 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.

¶55

The revision petitioners have filed the suit O.S. No. 10 of 2015 against the^{respondents/defendantNos.} 1 to¹⁰ seeking relief of^perpetual injunction in respect of^plaint schedule land.

¶56

¶57

SN, J cRP 2i75 2024

¶58

It is specifically averred in^para No.3 of the^affidavit filed in support of the^petition in I.A.No.Stl of^{2023 in O.S.}

¶59

No. 10 of 2015 as under:

¶60

*3. I submit that we the petitioners No.1 to 19/proposed plaintiffs No.2 to 20 are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property. Further we submit that we i.e.,^petitioners No.1 to^19/proposed plaintiffs No.2 to 20 have insisted the plaintiff to file the^present suit against the defendants^No.1 to^10, who were encroaching into the lands of^plaintiff."

¶61

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners submits that the request of the^petitioner to^accord permission to implead the proposed persons as plaintiffs in I.A.No.511 of 2023 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 was dismissed by the Court below and the same is illegal and if the^proposed impleadment had been ordered by the Court below, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants.

¶62

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contends that the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in I.A. No.51l of 2023 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 was rightly rejected by the Court below in view of the fact that the said request had been made after

SN, J cRP 2575 2024

lapse of eight (B) years from the date of^{institutionof the suit.} Further it has been specifically^pleadedin the^{affidavit filedby} the^petitioners at^para No.3 in I.A.^No.511 of^{2O23in O.S.} No.10 of 2015 on the file of Principle Junior Civil^{Judge at} Jangaon that the^petitioners herein themselves^{had insisted} the Respondent No.1l/plaintifF to file the suit^O.S.No.10of 2015 to implead^{petitioners/proposedplaintiff Nos.2 to 20 as} plaintiff Nos.2 to 20 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015.

¶67

\ \

¶68

This Court opines that the Court below at^para No.15 of its order indicated its detailed reasoning,^and rightly rejected the request of the^{petitionersto} implead them as plaintiff Nos.2 to 2O on the^ground that after lapse of almost eight (8)^years without explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay the present application had been filed and duly considering the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners at para No.3 in I.A. No. 511 of 2O23 in O.S. No. 1O of 2O15, this Court opines that there are^no merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall^no order as to costs,

SN, J cRP 2575 2024

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶73

¶74

Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSIST T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII , .^----=--- .Cdcirou ornGn--)/ To, ] Ihu^{prl. Junior Civil Judge} at Jangaon District 2 one cc to SriAiluri Divikar.Rgddt, fi;;;;ie (opuc) 3. one cc to sri Kanathuta a"n"r nljav,"il;"i;J; (opuc) 4. Two CD Copies

Ks/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 211212024

ORDER

CRP.No.2575 of 2024

ktt S L.1f 6'
t
I
(_) 1 3 FEts ?025 (-')
.<br>,'l
t'
.*<br>

¶82

Dismissing the C.R.P Without costs.

¶83

CqcTq qo-rrlA^-

Arjula Indrasena Reddy v. Damera Thamas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjula Indrasena Reddy v. Damera Thamas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Chenna Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Jayashri Industries, Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Laxmi Industries, Vs Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Icsa(India ) Limited Vs The Chief General Manager (Project Andrac)

Aishwarya Poultry Farm Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Kolagani Lavanya Vs Gopagoni Sugunakar