Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1231 (TS)

G. Krsihna Murthy v. C. Suryakantham

2025-10-15

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER: NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. Since the issue involved in these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same Original Suit No.11 of 2015, between the same parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The C.R.P.Nos.559, 575 and 590 of 2018 are filed against the Orders dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon. 3. Heard Mr.R.K.Chitta, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Inspite of service of notice none appeared for the respondents, as such respondents are set ex-parte. Perused the record. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.11 of 2015 on the file of V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon, seeking recovery of possession of the suit property. It is stated that I.A.No.68 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent No.20, I.A.No.80 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent Nos.23 to 27 and I.A.No.57 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 to avoid multiplicity of litigation and not to create third party interest over the suit property and the same was dismissed by the learned Judge, on the ground that the Suit property is in Sy.No.544/B/1 and the respective respondents have sold the land in Sy.No.544/1 and it is not the case of the petitioners that the respective respondents are in possession of the Suit property. Assailing the same, the respective C.R.Ps. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the grounds that were raised in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 to re-open the Suit for further evidence. 6. He further contended that the trial Court without recording proper reasons, dismissed I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 and failed to note that, the implead respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively purchased the property from defendant No.11 therein. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, while entertaining the injunction application, has directed the parties to the Suit not to alienate the suit schedule properties to the third parties till the disposal of the Suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, while entertaining the injunction application, has directed the parties to the Suit not to alienate the suit schedule properties to the third parties till the disposal of the Suit. However, with a malafide intention to create third party interest in the present Suit and to create multiplicity of litigation and to cause loss to the petitioners the defendant No.11 has executed the sale deeds in the name of implead respondents, as such they are necessary parties, as they have stepped into the shoe of the defendants. Therefore, the proposed respondents/defendants are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, hence, the orders impugned are liable to be set-aside and sought permission to implead respondent No.20 to 27 in the Suit and permit the petitioners to amend consequential amendments in the plaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the trial Court, while dismissing the I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015, failed to record proper reasons and the finding of the trial Court at Para-3 is as follows: “...it is not the case of the plaintiffs that, respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively are in possession of the suit property”. The case of the petitioners is that, with a malafide intention, to cause loss to the petitioners, the defendant No.11 has created third party interest in the present Suit, to create multiplicity of litigation, executed sale deeds in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.20 to 27. 8. He further contended that the trial Court erred in not considering the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. and failed to consider the aspect that, if the order under revision is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the Suit is decide on merits after impleading respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 in the respective Interlocutory Applications. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the trial Court erred in giving a finding that the Suit property is in Sy.No.544-B/1 and respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively were sold the land in Sy.No.544/1 and it is not shown that, the property purchased by the respective respondents forms part and parcel of the Suit schedule property. 10. 10. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 even though, the implead respondent Nos.20, 23 to 27 and 20 to 23 did not enter appearance inspite of service of notice on them before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in between Varanasi Madhava Rao vs Narayansetti govind Rajulu , 1999 93) (HC) wherein it was held that 5. The Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition mainly on two grounds. Firstly, inspite of the knowledge of pendency of the suit, the petitioner's father purchased the property in 1996 under a registered sale deed which is said to have been executed on 2-9-1997 but the petitioner filed the present petition after a long lapse in 1999 and hence the petition was dismissed as having been filed belatedly. The other ground mentioned is that the petitioner had not filed any petition for consequential amendment as contemplated under Rule 28 of CRP. 10. As stated above, in this case, there is a specific averment on behalf of the petitioner herein that the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit colluded to harm his interest. Under these circumstances, the petitioner must be deemed to be a necessary party. Failure to implead him would lead to multiplicity of litigation. Under these circumstances, to avoid multiplicity of suits and to give finality to the litigation, the presence of the petitioner as a party to the suit is necessary. The learned Junior Civil Judge has not even referred to this allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner as to collusion between the petitioner and the defendant. 11. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was filed belatedly and for not asking for consequential amendment is not proper. 12. The other ground for refusing or rejecting the petition is technical in nature, namely, non-compliance of Rule 28 of CRP. It is doubtful whether this rule applies to petitions for impleading. At any rate, it cannot be a ground for rejecting this petition. 12. He further relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2022, wherein permission was granted to the petitioners therein to implead the respondents therein, who purchased the Suit schedule property, pendente lite. It is doubtful whether this rule applies to petitions for impleading. At any rate, it cannot be a ground for rejecting this petition. 12. He further relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2022, wherein permission was granted to the petitioners therein to implead the respondents therein, who purchased the Suit schedule property, pendente lite. Therefore, he prays to set-aside the Order dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 in O.S. No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon District. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has posed a question, whether a relief sought under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice is applicable to the present revisions, which reads as follows: Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice refers to the mandatory procedure for filing applications that seek amendments to a legal document, such as a plaint. Under this rule, an application must not only request the amendment but also clearly indicate where the consequential changes are to be made in the original plaint, and the applicant must comply with all applicable legal procedures. If the applicant fails to do so, the court will likely dismiss the petition. for which, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC the mentioning of Rule 28 and the subsequential amendment can be made by way of an oral request can be done, which is permissible as per the proviso of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. 14. It is also pointed out that the same is curable defect, though the word “shall” is mentioned in the provision but he contended that in view of the said provision in the Proviso, the Rule becomes directory and not mandatory, where it is provided under Proviso, that request can be made with the permission of the Court. This shows that very rule itself is not mandatory and it is directory and even he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Varanasi Madhava Rao’s case cited supra. 15. This shows that very rule itself is not mandatory and it is directory and even he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Varanasi Madhava Rao’s case cited supra. 15. Considering the above decision and the Proviso, this Court is also of the opinion that though the Rule 28 is mentioned, but it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to see that what are the consequential amendments that have to be made and placed before the trial Court, though that _____ mentioning of Rule 28 with the application may not be fatal to the present application, this Court has to consider the submission upon the subsequential amendment. Even at the later point of time, as provided under Proviso, may also seek for amendment of the pleadings. The other question, which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to implead the proposed respondents as defendants. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the proposed respondent entered into the shoe of the defendant by purchasing Suit schedule property and he also contended that the proposed respondents being the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the petition that too after allowing the injunction application by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, inspite of directing the parties not to alienate the Suit property. 17. Admittedly there is no denial that the said property was sold to the proposed respondents/defendants and he also further relied upon the judgment of this Court and the learned coordinate bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2022, while discussing the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by various High Courts including the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, wherein, it was held that purchasers of the Suit property, pendente lite, are necessary parties and they have to be impleaded to decide the lis. 18. It is a settled law that a purchaser of the Suit property during the pendency of the suit is a necessary party and his impleadment should be allowed. The said principle was also laid down by the Delhi High Court in Sh.Ramnik Gupta vs Ms.Sneh Latha Guptha. 19. 18. It is a settled law that a purchaser of the Suit property during the pendency of the suit is a necessary party and his impleadment should be allowed. The said principle was also laid down by the Delhi High Court in Sh.Ramnik Gupta vs Ms.Sneh Latha Guptha. 19. Referring to the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd.and others v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. , [ AIR 2012 SC 2925 ] , Thomson Press (India) Ltd., v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd., & others, 2013 (5) SCC 397 and Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs Som Dass (Deceased) Through His Chela Shiamdass , [ 1976 (1) SCC 103 ] , and in Yeddula Satheesh Kumar Reddy and others v. Sankireddy Bakkireddy Aseervad Kumar Reddy and others , [ 2016 (5) ALT 36 ] , High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that pendete lite purchaser is necessary parties and he has to be impleaded. 20. In view of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts on hand, it is not in dispute that proposed respondents have purchased the Suit schedule property, pendente lite. The said facts are not disputed by the proposed respondents. Just because the cause of action arose recently, and that petitioners did not seek consequential relief under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice and the ground that their presence is not necessary in the Suit and the Court below cannot dismiss the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of necessary parties, who purchased part of the subject property, pendente lite. The said finding of the Court below in the impugned order is not on the basis of actual facts and legal position. 21. As stated supra and also in view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, purchasers of the suit property, pendete lite, are necessary parties and they have to be impleaded to decide the lis. Therefore, viewed from any angle permission shall be granted to the petitioners to implead respective proposed respondents as necessary parties to the Suit. Therefore, the impugned Orders dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon is not on correct facts and legal position and is liable to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. 22. Therefore, the impugned Orders dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon is not on correct facts and legal position and is liable to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. 22. With the above observation, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 dated 03.11.2017 are set-aside and consequently, I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 are allowed. The petitioners herein are permitted to implead respondent No.20 in I.A.No.68 of 2015, respondent Nos.23 to 27 in I.A.No.80 of 2015 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 in I.A.No.57 of 2015 as respective defendants in O.S.No.11 of 2015. There shall be no order as to costs. Note: Though the impugned order was passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC) Warangal, now it is designated as Principal District & Sessions Judge Jangaon for the purpose of communication. 23. As stated above, the Suit is of the year 2015, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge Jangaon, is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Suit, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.