THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Revision Petition No.3722 OF 2023

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.09.2023 in I.A.No.834 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2016 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned, wherein the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the proposed respondents as defendants, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that petitioners/plaintiffs have filed petition under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the proposed respondents as defendants and the brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are as under:

a) The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which are their ancestral properties. The suit schedule property is land admeasuring Ac.6.03 guntas in Sy.No.1106 and land admeasuring Ac.2.19 guntas in Sy.No.1064 of Ameenpur Villages. Along with the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs have also filed I.A.No.268 of 2016 seeking ad interim injunction and on 11.03.2016 the Court was pleased to grant statusquo with regard to the alienation of suit schedule property.

b) The land in Sy.No.1106 of Ameenpur Village is vacant but in spite of statusquo orders the respondent No.3 completed construction in the land admeasuring Ac.6.03 guntas in Sy.No.1106 by violating the orders of statusquo. Respondent No.9 and his brothers claiming ownership in respect of land in Sy.No.1106 have entered into development agreement with the respondent No.3 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.3 completed the construction in Sy.No.1106, as such there is no land lying vacant in Sy.No.1106. The land admeasuring Ac.2.19 guntas in Sy.No.1064 is abutting the land in Sy.No.1106 and taking advantage of the part of land lying vacant in Sy.No.1064, the proposed respondent No.9 without any right or title, showing vacant land inSy.No.1064 as land in Sy.No.1106 has created third party rights in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.10 to 13, who in turn have constructed houses.

c) As the proposed respondents are claiming rights over part of the suit schedule properties and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present petition to implead the respondent Nos.9 to 13 as defendants for proper adjudication of the partition suit. If the proposed respondents are not impleaded as defendants, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs.

4. To the above said petition, the respondent Nos.9 to 11 and 13/proposed defendants have filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under:

a) The respondents have no idea as to who filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also not having any idea whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral or not. The respondents have no idea even about the statusquo order granted by the Court with regard to alienation of the suit schedule property.

b) The petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to show that development agreement was entered by these respondents with respondent No.3 and to say that constructed was completed. The respondents are no way connected to the said lands and filing of the impleading petition is nothing but creating mental tension and agony and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. On hearing rival contentions, the trial Court dismissed the implead petition on the ground that as the respondents are not specifically claiming rights in Sy.No.1106, the presence of the proposed defendants is not required for adjudicatin