Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G. RADHA RANI, J.
G. Shruthi - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Prime Properties - Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.1662, 1964, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2011 and 2012 of 2019
Decided On : 10-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D GNANESWARA NAIDU
For the Respondent: G ARUN
The court held that individual plot owners were not necessary parties to the suits, as their interests were adequately represented by the housing society, and allowing their impleadment would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Dismissal of applications for impleadment - Petitioners sought to be impleaded as defendants in suits concerning property rights - Court found that their impleadment would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and that the existing defendants adequately represented their interests. (Paras 10, 20, 21)
(B) Necessary Parties - The court emphasized that only necessary parties should be impleaded to avoid delays in litigation, and the existing representation by the Society was deemed sufficient. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, individual plot owners, sought to be added as defendants in suits filed for cancellation of a sale deed concerning property developed by a housing society. The trial court dismissed their applications, leading to these revisions.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal, stating that the Society effectively represented the interests of the plot owners and that allowing individual impleadments would derail the proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were necessary parties and if their impleadment would cause multiplicity of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existing defendants adequately represented the interests of the petitioners, and their impleadment would complicate and prolong the litigation unnecessarily.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.
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 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 woul
