COMMON ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.893 & 894 of 2024 in O.S.No.87 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

2. Heard Mr.G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment as defendant No.9 in the suit stands rejected, leading to the filing of the instant civil revision petitions.

4. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendant Nos.1 to 8. The suit was filed as early as in the year 2016. The defendant No.2 to 8 inspite of proper service and even after paper publication also chose not to contest the case and therefore, were proceed exparte. Only defendant No.1 was contesting the matter. The written statement was filed by defendant No.1 on 19.09.2022. The evidence were all closed and the matter now stands fixed for the final arguments in the suit. It is at this stage that the petition under Order I Rule 10 has been filed seeking for impleadment as necessary party defendant No.9 as the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property having purchased the property from defendant No.6 who has been proceeded exparte.

5. The contention of the petitioner was that defendant No.6 is the vendor of the petitioner and defendant No.6 in turn had purchased the property from defendant Nos.4 & 5. Defendant No.6 had purchased the property from defendant Nos.4 & 5 in the year 2005. This pendency of the suit was not brought to the notice of the petitioner herein neither was he aware of the said case pending at any point of time and it is only recently when the petitioner had gone to the revenue authorities for getting his name entered in the revenue records and there he was informed that the property is one which was under litigation and there is an order of status quo passed by the civil court and it is only thereafter that the petitioner filed the petition under Order I Rule 10 seeking for impleadment as defendant No.9.

6. According to the petitioner there has been certain facts which the petitioner intends to bring to the knowledge of the trial court which will go to show that the petitioner was not at any point of time aware of pending dispute in the civil court. In addition, the petitioner also submits that since it is a suit for partition and separate possession even if it is decreed the appearance of the petitioner would only help to the extent of protecting his property, even while the suit schedule property is partitioned in favour of the plaintiffs. For all this, the trial court could not have rejected the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on 29.01.2024 in the case of H.Anjanappa V. A.Prabhakar, [Civil Appeal Nos.1180-1181 of 2025.]

8. Upon hearing the counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of record, admittedly, a suit was filed by the plaintiff way back in the year 2016. There is also an order of injunction so far as the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. Except for defendant No.1, all other defendants chose not to contest the case and the trial court had no other option, but to proceed exparte against them. Though the suit was filed in the year 2016, the petitioner herein has purchased the said property only in the year 2019 from defendant No.6. From 2019 till 2023-2024, there does not seem to be any efforts made by the petitioner to get his name entered in the revenue records which could had help him to know about the injunction order of status quo passed by the trial court, so also the subject property being under litigation. There also does not seem to be any document to show that as to whether the petitioner had taken necessary care and precautio