The court held that a party lacking legal standing cannot be impleaded in a suit concerning property rights.

ORDER:

 RENUKA YARA, J.

1.Heard Sri Thomas Lloyed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.591 of 2023 in O.S.No.3110 of 2015, wherein a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to implead respondent No.1 herein as defendant No.2 in the suit has been allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner herein filed suit seeking perpetual injunction against respondent No.2 herein i.e., GHMC, with respect to suit schedule property consisting of structures and constructions in premises bearing H.No.1-2-234/13/57 & 58, Flat No.501 and 502, Arvind Vihar Apartment, Arvind Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad, admeasuring 2000 sq. feet bounded by entrance in north and open to sky on south, east and west. The revision petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the land, obtained permissions and constructed apartments. All the units of the building have been sold by retaining suit schedule property. The revision petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1995 onwards. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.901 of 2008 under the building penalization scheme proposed for regularization of illegal constructions and after learning about the said scheme the revision petitioner applied for regularization by paying requisite fee. Respondent No.2 sent demand letter for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and said amount was paid vide D.D.No.028692, dated 26.12.2012. Thereafter, the revision petitioner approached respondent No.2-corporation to release the BPS file, but the same was not done. A fresh application was made with previous application and required amount was again paid by the revision petitioner which is an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- on 16.12.2015. The revision petitioner also regularly paid property tax. On 17.12.2025, respondent No.2-corporation made an attempt to demolish structures of the property of the revision petitioner leading to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, respondent No.1-flat owners’ welfare association got impleaded by the impugned order, aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

4. The petition under revision is filed by the authorized agent of respondent No.1 herein to put forth the fact that the suit schedule property is an unauthorized structure constructed on the terrace without permission of respondent No.2-coporation. The terrace is meant for use by all the 30 owners, who are having flats in one apartment complex. Whereas, the revision petitioner has obstructed such usage and therefore, there is need for impleadment of the flat owners association as a party to the present suit. 5. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court allowed the petition and impleaded respondent No.1 as defendant No.2 in the main suit.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the a similar petition was filed and the same was dismissed in the year 2017 and filing of similar petition seeking similar relief is not maintainable on the principle of res judicata. Further, it is pleaded that there is suppression of fact of dismissal of the previous petition as the same is not mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the I.A. under revision. It is pleaded that respondent No.1 ought to have challenged the common order in I.A.No.612 of 2016 in O.S.No.3110 of 2015 and I.A.No.605 of 2016 in I.A.No.1014 of 2015 in O.S.No.3110 of 2015, dated 17.03.2017, instead of filing the I.A. un