ORDER : (G. RADHA RANI, J.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners – proposed defendants aggrieved by the orders passed in the I.A.s. for dismissing the petitions filed by them under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead them as party defendants in either one of the four suits i.e. O.S.Nos.898 of 2001, 899 of 2001, 900 of 2001 and 901 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, which were presently reported to be transferred to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally upon reorganization of judicial districts and renumbered as O.S.Nos.588 of 2022, 589 of 2022, 590 of 2022 and 591 of 2022. 2. Though the facts of all the above matters are similar in nature, the facts of the case in C.R.P.No.1662 of 2019 are taken for reference. 3. As seen from the facts of the above case, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.12.1991 executed in pursuance of the Execution Proceedings No.41 of 1996 filed by the defendants on the basis of the decree dated 24.04.1984 passed in O.S.No.152 of 1994 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District pertaining to the suit property bearing Survey No.1007 (part) situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, admeasuring Ac-50-00 guntas as illegal, void and nonest and not binding upon him and further seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule property. 4. The defendant No.1 was M/s.Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society represented by its President and the defendant No.2 was M/s.Bhagyanagar Co- operative Housing Society Plot Owners Welfare Association represented by its Organizing Secretary. 5. Written statements were filed by both the defendants. 6. As per the written statement filed by defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 – Society had developed the suit schedule property and made them into plots under proper layouts and sold the said plots to various individuals. The defendant No.1 – Society had made 1800 plots and allotted the same to its members and out of that 1100 plots were conveyed through registered sale deeds and the members of the defendant No.1 – Society were in possession of the plots from the date of their respective allotment / conveyance. 7. The defendant No.1 – Society had made 1800 plots and allotted the same to its members and out of that 1100 plots were conveyed through registered sale deeds and the members of the defendant No.1 – Society were in possession of the plots from the date of their respective allotment / conveyance. 7. The owners of some of the plots have filed the applications under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as party defendants. The said applications were dismissed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the said petitions, the proposed defendants preferred these revisions. 9. Heard Sri S.M.Saifullah, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.V.Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Ms.S.Sirisha, learned counsel representing Sri D.Gnaneswara Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner on record in C.R.P.No.1662 of 2019 and Sri Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel representing G.Arun, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners – proposed defendants submitted that the petitioners or their vendors purchased the said plots much prior to the filing of the above four suits by respondent No.1. By then, their rights were accrued. The trial court failed to understand the scope of Order I Rule 10 of CPC and came to a wrong conclusion and observed that if the applications filed by the petitioners were allowed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. If the petitioners were impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit, it would avoid multiplicity of litigation and the Court could adjudicate the rights of all the parties claiming title to the suit schedule property in the same suits. If the petitioners were directed to work out their remedies before an appropriate forum, it would drive the parties to file separate cases, which would pave way for multiplicity of litigation, which was against the principles of law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioners made an application to GHMC for layout regularization and the GHMC had regularized their plots. The lower court without verifying the documents observed that no sanctioned layout was granted by the Municipal Authorities. The respondent No.1, without impleading proper, necessary and affected parties, filed the above suits. The petitioners made an application to GHMC for layout regularization and the GHMC had regularized their plots. The lower court without verifying the documents observed that no sanctioned layout was granted by the Municipal Authorities. The respondent No.1, without impleading proper, necessary and affected parties, filed the above suits. The respondent No.2 – Society was not taking any interest in contesting and pursuing the suit proceedings seriously, as it had sold the suit schedule properties to its members long back. The Managing Committee of the respondent No.2 – Society was not showing any inclination to safeguard the interest of the individual plot owners. No prejudice would be caused to the parties to the suit in the event the petitioners were impleaded as party defendants in the main suits. The lower court gravely erred in saying that the petitioners would have no better title than that of the vendor. The said aspect could not be decided at this stage. The only point for consideration was that whether the party seeking to get impleaded as defendant was proper and necessary party and the lower court had misaddressed itself on the scope and nature of the application. The petitioners had direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit, which was filed for cancellation of sale deed executed in favor of their vendors and therefore they were entitled to come on record as successors-in-interest and relied upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.391 of 2019 passed in a similar such matter arising out of I.A.No.787 of 2018 in O.S.No.898 of 2001 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, dated 27.03.2019. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff submitted that all the four suits were clubbed together and trial was being conducted in common. Evidence of the plaintiffs was completed and DW.1 was examined in chief. 120 documents were filed through DW.1. No allegations were made against the Association. The petitioners claimed to have acquired the property through the Society. The Society was effectively prosecuting the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed a series of orders directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months and made it clear that the individual impleadments of members in future should not derail or delay further proceedings in the suits. The petitioners claimed to have acquired the property through the Society. The Society was effectively prosecuting the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed a series of orders directing the trial court to complete the trial within six months and made it clear that the individual impleadments of members in future should not derail or delay further proceedings in the suits. This Court also in a matter arising out of a similar case, in C.R.P.No.137 of 2022 , on considering the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, dismissed the CRP, which was also confirmed in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).No.11939 of 2022 dated 09.09.2022 by the Hon’ble Apex Court and relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.137 of 2022 dated 07.04.2022. 12. Perused the record. 13. As seen from the record, C.R.P.No.391 of 2019 was also filed challenging the dismissal of the application for impleadment filed by third parties on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2018. The said petition was also dismissed by the lower court on the same reasons assigned in this petition observing that the petitioners were claiming title through the second respondent – Society and had got no independent title and unless the title of their vendor was decided, the petitioners could not step into the shoes of their vendor. The respondent No.2 without obtaining an approved layout, allotted plots to various members through various sale deeds and there were several such allottees, who wanted to be arrayed as defendants in the suits under registered sale deeds obtained by them. The respondent No.1 – plaintiff could not be compelled to litigate against them and that the Court could not enlarge the scope of the suit for the convenience of the petitioners, as it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 14. This Court in the above CRP set aside the said orders of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar observing that the petitioners were necessary parties to the suit. They have got direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit. The possibility of the Office Bearers of the respondent No.2 – Society colluding with the respondent No.1 – plaintiff could not be ruled out and even otherwise the Office Bearers of the respondent No.2 – Society having sold the property to the petitioners, might not show much interest in contesting the suit. The possibility of the Office Bearers of the respondent No.2 – Society colluding with the respondent No.1 – plaintiff could not be ruled out and even otherwise the Office Bearers of the respondent No.2 – Society having sold the property to the petitioners, might not show much interest in contesting the suit. Only if the petitioners were on record, they would be able to effectively safeguard their interest. 14.1. This Court further observed in the above CRP that the lower court ought not to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, whether there was sanctioned layout or not, which was the subject matter of the suit. 14.2. This Court also further observed that the contention that the impleadment of the petitioners would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, could not be accepted, as their impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but would not lead to multiplicity of proceedings. While allowing the application, this Court also gave a direction to the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, which was passed on 27.03.2019. 15. Challenging the said order, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).No.11052 of 2019. While dismissing the SLP, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the direction given by the trial court to decide the suits within a period of six months and made it clear that the individual impleadment of members in future shall not in any manner, either derail or delay further proceedings in the suit and reiterated that the trial court must decide the suits within a period of six months from the said date of the order passed on 08.05.2019. 16. Subsequently, several applications were filed for amendment of the plaint, for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3 and written statements were filed by the impleaded parties, additional written statements were also filed raising new grounds, rejoinders were filed and review applications were also filed on the rejoinders, additional issues were also framed and the matters went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions and the Hon’ble Apex Court gave directions to decide the suits within six months in C.P.(C).No.433 of 2020 and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).No.6464 of 2022. On each and every occasion, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the trial court to decide the suits within six months. In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C).No.6464 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the directions already given by it earlier and specified that the matter ought to be assigned specific priority, so that trial could be concluded at the earliest, preferably before 31.03.2023. 17. Subsequently on 06.07.2023 also, time was extended for a further period of six months by making an observation that they hope and trust that the learned counsel being conscious of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court would not prolong the proceedings in cross-examining PW.1, as the same were reported to be continued for nearly 11 days and directed the trial court to put the learned counsel in check in case the proceedings were being prolonged. 18. On 08.01.2024 also, once again the Hon’ble Apex Court extended time given to the trial court for completion of trial for a further period of three months and on 22.04.2024, extended it for a further period of three months and on 13.09.2024, extended it for a further period of six months as a last opportunity and directed both the parties to cooperate to conclude the trial. 19. Thus, as seen from the record, though the Hon’ble Apex Court was closely monitoring the trial of the suits, the matter is getting postponed from time to time due to several complexities arising out of it. The impleadment of the petitioners is derailing the proceedings. 20. This Court in C.R.P.No.137 of 2022 by observing the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to conclude the trial within a specific period and considering that there were 2000 plot owners of the Society and if they would go on filing implead petitions, the suit proceedings could never be concluded, observed that the Plot Owners Welfare Association was representing effectively, as such, again each individual plot owner need not contest the matter by way of filing implead applications independently. 21. Considering the complex situation arising in the suits by allowing the impleadment of each plot owner, who purchased individual plots sold by the Society, this Court also agrees with the view taken by this Court earlier in C.R.P.No.137 of 2022 . 21. Considering the complex situation arising in the suits by allowing the impleadment of each plot owner, who purchased individual plots sold by the Society, this Court also agrees with the view taken by this Court earlier in C.R.P.No.137 of 2022 . The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – plaintiff would disclose that the matter was hotly contested and PW.1 was cross-examined at length continuously for more than 11 days, DW.1 had also filed his evidence affidavit and 120 documents were filed through DW.1. There were no allegations against the Plot Owners Association that they were not contesting the matter properly and that the rights of the petitioners were affected in any manner. The Association is taking care of their interest. The interest of each individual plot owner is properly protected. As their impleadment would cause derailing the proceedings, this Court considers that the individual plot owners need not be impleaded. 22. In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the individual plot owners are dismissed confirming the orders passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar dated 31.12.2018. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these petitions, if any, shall stand closed.