IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff has the prerogative to choose parties in a suit and cannot be compelled to include a party against whom no relief is sought.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff. He filed O.S. No. 461 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon seeking permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.575 of 2023 and obtained ex parte injunction. Thereafter, revision petitioner - proposed defendant No. 3 had taken out I.A. Nos. 148 and 149 of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment in I.A.No.575 of 2023 and O.S.No.461 of 2023 respectively. Petitioner, inter alia, contended that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 8404.75 square yards in Survey Nos. 13/E1, 123/E2 and 125/D1 situated at Venkateshwara Colony, Shameerpet Village, Jangaon Mandal and District, through a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2015; subsequently he also sold away some plots to various purchasers. It is stated that vendor of plaintiff on the basis of sham and bogus documents, filed O.S.No.287 of 2015 against third parties on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon in respect of the suit schedule property; subsequently by order in I.A.No.5 of 2017 withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit. Thereafter, O.S.No.21 of 2022 was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession with perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property on the file of the Senior Civil Jude Court at Jangaon against petitioner and during the pendency of the said suit, vendor of plaintiff sold suit schedule property to plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2023 and the said suit was also withdrawn on 18.07.2023 as not pressed. It is relevant to state that plaintiff and his vendor colluded with each other, created a sham and bogus sale deed vide document No. 1187/2023; managed the revenue authorities and obtained mutation in revenue records with an intention to grab his house plots. When the land was converted into house plots and Abadi, the Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act is not applicable to the abadi lands. Suppressing the true facts, plaintiff filed the present suit against some third parties and fraudulently obtained ex parte ad-interim injunction order. In fact, defendants in the suit are n? way concerned to the suit schedule property. Under the guise of the said order, plaintiff tried to grab the house plots of revision petitioner in Survey Nos. 123/E1, 123/E2 and 125/D1 of Shameerpet Village.

2. To the said Applications, plaintiff filed a detailed counter stating that petitioner cannot claim himself to be the absolute owner and possessor of any extent in plaint schedule property as revenue records do not support his claim. Till today, plaint schedule property was not converted into non-agricultural use, as such, petitioner cannot own any extent in yards and he is also not authorized to sell any part of suit land in yards to third parties as he did not obtain any approved lay out from the Director of Town and Country Planning. The registered sale deeds of vendor or petitioner for that matter, cannot help him to intervene as he has no locus standi. It is stated that sale in favour of his vendor was declared to be invalid as Mubarak Educational Society did not pass any Resolution authorizing the Secretary of said Society to sell the land in favour of vendor of petitioner. In para 11 of the written statement filed by petitioner in O.S. No. 21 of 2022, petitioner merelv denied the above fact, but law remains the same that Society should pass Resolution authorizing the President or Secretary of a Society to sell any land which is in the holding of the Society. Plaintiff further stated that he had no necessity to mention about earlier legal proceedings when a suit for permanent injunction is filed basing on title and possession supported by revenue record and dharani entries. It is only imagination of petitioner but not based on legal principles. Even if the documents in hi