Proposed purchasers sought impleadment as co-defendants in a perpetual injunction suit over suit schedule land. The trial court refused; the High Court held that in a bare injunction suit such claimants must file a separate suit, noted unexplained delay in filing the revision, and dismissed it without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
u
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
.a
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL R EVISION PETITION NOi 41 OF 2024
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 19.04.2022 passed in l. A. No. 1012 of 2019 in OS. No. 229 of 2010 on the file of the court of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Warangal.
Between:
I
...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PARTIES
AND
,.'
,,iJ,
;r
A. Jagadeeshwar, S/o. lateSri. Satyanarayana,aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ramannapet, WarangalCity - 506 002
...RESPONDENT
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to stay all furtherproceedings in OS No. 4132 of 2022(Old number OSNo. 229 2010 - on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal)pend rng on the file of Il Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile) under PCR Acti cum- ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BOMMINENI VIVEKANANDA
Counsel for the Respondent: ---
The Court made the following: ORDER
I i,.-'
-.{,ra
i.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CryIL REVISION PETITION No.41 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, leamed counsel for the petitioners.
2 The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 in I.A. No.1012 of 2019 in O.S. No.229 of 2010 (on transfer it was renumbered as O.S. No.4l32 of 2022 pending on the file of II Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act cum II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda) passed by leamed II Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
i.e., O.S. No.229 of 2010. He filed the said suit against the defendant
2
KL, J CRP No.4l of2024
Order - I, Rule- 10 read with15 1 of CPC seeking to implead them as
co-defendant Nos.2to 10 on the followinggrounds:
i) Petitioner No.2hereinhas purchasedopen plotbearing plot No.l, admeasuring984.57 square yardsin Survey Nos.12llA.IB fromits erstwhile owners Mr' Potula Venkateshwarluand Smt. L. Pushpavathi, represented by their GPA Holder,Mr. Khaja Najmuddin under two different registeredsaledeeds bearing document Nos'795 and796 of 2010;
ii) Petitioner Nos.3 to6 purchasedplot Nos'2, 3, 4 and5 from Mr. PothulaVenkateshwarlu represented by his GPA Holder Mr.KhajaNajmuddin;
iiD PetitionerNos.7, 8 and 10 purchasedtheir respective
plots from Smt. Pothula Ramulammarepresented by her GPA Holder Mr. KhajaNajmuddin;
iv) Afterpurchase, allthe petitioners have constructedthe compound wall encirclingtheir plots, watchmen's quarter etc. and they arepaying property tax to the Greater Warangal MunicipalCorporation, power consumption charges to the concemedNPDCL Authorities;
a
3
KI, J CRP No.4l of2024
v) The petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots;
vi) Some of the petitioners have also hled a suit vide O.S. No.314 of 2011 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal against Manda Kumara Swamy and others and the same was decreed on 26.10.2012;
vii) Respondent No.l suppressing all the said material facts, filed the present suit; and
viii) Therefore, the petitioners herein are proper and necessary parties to the present suit.
i) Respondent No. 1 is in possession of the suit schedule properfy. When the defendant interfered with his possession, he filed the present suit against him seeking perpetual injunction. The petitioners herein are no way concemed with his property and, therefore, they are not necessary parties to the present suit.
4
Kl-, , CRP No.4lo12024
revision contending thatthe trial Court erred in dismissing the
5
KL, J CRP No.4l of2024
\ \
l \
application. The trial Court failed to consider the fact that respondent No.1 filed the suit seeking injunction on the basis of title held by him, whereas the petitioners herein also claim that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. Therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit.
6
KL,,I CRP No 4l of2024
certified copies of sale deeds.Thesaidcontention of the petitioners is false and contrary to therecord.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orderas to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
revision shall stand closed.
I
,ffRUECOPY//
so/- P.PADMANA?EI,:iRlI Y-- -
SECTIONOFFICER
To, I The llSpecial Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass tY"qi9 under PCRAct-cum- AdditionalJuniorcivit J,ja-g; i"nurLonda.(with.records) 2. The lAddirionatLrnto, ciilLirig?-"r*-JroitiaMagistrateof First class'
, 8fiT8"l"sri Bomminenivivekananda' Advocate [oPUC]
plp
?A
| 'l-r
ffi
,i "ll
f'BB-f,j--{, j: ; ]_'1' :ij;
\
i rl
t. I
1,,''''1:'t,f\
HIGH COURT
DATED:1210112024
ORDER
CRP.No.41 ot 2024
DISMISSING THE C.R.P.
w
e
lir:1'
li;
i4tl
.Elli
'i.]
,j
1 1aE S IAf4r o
:)
Ir
,J 0 2 APR 2[24
*
t D5 5 p41CH cC
i,
r
?.i$.
$,:ffii
,.r,.ffiH*,r,,*,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proposed parties claiming ownership of adjoining plots could be impleaded as co-defendants in a bare injunction suit filed by the plaintiff.
Whether the revision was liable to be dismissed for delay in filing after the impugned order.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Ram Reddy
Rushi Educational Society, Rep. by its President K. Sambashiva Reddy
A. Saraswathi
P. Sadashiv
R. Abhinav Reddy
D. Indrasena Reddy
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
