ORDER:

The instant Revision Petition is filedinvoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is to the order dated 20.12.2024, in I.A.No.687 of 2024 in O.S.No.139 of 2023, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). The rejection was to the request of impleading the petitioner herein as defendant No.5 in the original suit.

4. In the instant case, the original suit i.e. O.S.No.139 of 2023 has been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 against the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 for perpetual injunction seeking an order of restraint against the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and their henchmen or anybody else for and on behalf of them perpetually restraining them from any sort of interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 over the suit schedule property.

5. The suit schedule property in the instant case is the land admeasuring Ac.0.12.40 guntas or 0.124 hects., situated in Survey No.10 (part) of Guttala Begumpet, Seri Lingamplly, Ranga Reddy District. The suit has been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3claiming themselves to be the absolute owners and in peaceful possession of the said property. The respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 alleged in their plant that the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and their henchmen are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession by coercion and illegally trying to evict the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 from the suit schedule property forcing them to file a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner herein / proposed defendant No.5 has sought for his impleadment as a necessary party.

6. According to the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5, neither the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 nor the defendants in the said suit i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein are in actual ownership of the suit schedule property or they had any cogent strong proof in establishing their claim over the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 contends that the original owner of the property in dispute was Mr. K. Surendra Rao, who by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 11.03.1982, had assigned Ac.10-00 guntas to the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 and the entire suit for perpetual injunction is nothing but a collusive suit without disclosing actual factual matrix of the case only with an intention of siphoning away the property which is otherwise in possession of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5.

7. It was the contention of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 that subsequently he had come in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into between Mr. K. Surendra Rao and himself, and the possession of the suit schedule property was given to him. Meanwhile, Mr. K. Surendra Rao, the original owner of the property, is said to have sold the property in favour of M/s. Ravi Shankar Films Pvt. Ltd. However, on the ground of the alleged agreement of sale and the conditions therein being refused to be honoured by the authority concerned, the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.740 of 1996 for specific performance on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 on 14.11.2005. Against the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.740 of 1996, a First Appeal was preferred before the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), R.R. District at L.B.

Nagar vide Appeal Suit No.8 of 2006,