S.Mahipal Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case brief
What is this about?
Purchaser of suit land challenged dismissal of his impleadment petition in a pending property suit. The High Court issued notice before admission and stayed all further proceedings in the trial court suit until the next hearing.
What did the court decide?
Notice before admission; interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.137 of 2024 till next hearing; personal notice permitted.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
MAIN CASE No: C.R.P.No.2377 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl. No. |
DATE | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25.07.2025 | EVV,J C.R.P.No.2377 of 2025 Notice before admission. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.2 to 8 and 10 through RPAD and file proof of service into the Registry. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 is present. List on 22.08.2025. |
Transferred to IO folder before making corrections |
|
| I.A.No.1 of 2025 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased land to an extent of 626.60 sq.yards in Sy.No.234 within the limits of Jagtial Town_vide_a registered sale deed bearing document No.3821 of 2016, dated 14.07.2016 and also another extent of 52 sq.yards in the same survey number_vide_a registered sale deed bearing document No.3807 of 2016, dated 14.07.2016. Respondent No.2 herein/defendant in O.S.No.137 of 2024 (old O.S.No.124 of 2012) has filed O.S.No.81 of 2012, wherein |
2 C.R.P.No.2377 of 2025
| Sl. No. |
DATE | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| the petitioner got impleaded in the said suit as plaintiff No.2 by filing I.A.No.360 of 2023. The property which is purchased by the petitioner is the subject matter of a O.S.No.137 of 2024. Since the petitioner acquired interest in the suit schedule property, he is a proper and necessary party for determination of lis involved in the suit accordingly he has filed I.A.No.589 of 2024 in O.S.No.137 of 2024 praying to implead him as defendant No.2 in O.S.No.137 of 2024. But the trial Court failed to look into Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C provision and erroneously dismissed I.A.No.589 of 2024 in O.S.No.137 of 2024. The relevant portion reads as under: “14. This shows that the impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 C.P.C is not automatic and this court in the foregoing discussion held that considering the facts the petitioner herein is not a necessary party for the proper disposal of the suit and his impleadment in one of the suit filed by his vendor cannot automatically give any right of impleadment to the petitioner to get impleaded in the present suit.” Learned counsel also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of**A.Nawab John and others vs. V.N.Subramaniyam (2012 (7)** |
|||
| **SCC 738)**which categorically held that pendency of a suit does not prevent one of |
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the purchaser of part of the suit schedule property should be impleaded as defendant in O.S.No.137 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC?
Coram
EVV
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/2377/2025
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court