THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH C.R.P.Nos.2819, 2736, 2738, 2741, 2748, 2751, 2758, 2761, 2783, 2788, 2798, 2800, 2803, 2807, 2811, 2816, 2818, 2832, 2836, 2844, 2850, 2853, 2868, 2870, 2874, 2875, 2892, 2896, 2898, 2900 and 2929 of

2022

COMMON ORDER

The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders of dismissal dated 07.11.2022 passed in the petitions filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C., to implead the petitioner as defendant No.2 in 31 suits filed by the respondent No.1 in the Court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are one and the same in all these revision petitions and the other respondents are tenants in respective shops. Since all these revision petitions arise out of common issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for Sri I. Gopal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Mohith Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

4. The respondent No.1 herein filed suits for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for mesne profits against the respondent No.2 in all these revision petitions. She also filed Interlocutory Applications for payment of outstanding arrears of rent. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed petitions to implead him as respondent in the said suits stating that the respondent No.1 is his daughter- in-law and she has no title or right over the suit schedule properties to file the suits and she is not entitled for any relief in the Interlocutory Applications. The petitioner and his younger brother are owners of the suit schedule properties having acquired the same after demise of their father and they have let out the properties to the respondent No.2 in all these revisions on rent basis and they are paying rents to the petitioner from past more than 10 years. The petitioner also filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. in the main suits to implead him as defendant. Under the guise of registered gift deed which is conveyed by producing fabricated will deed, the respondent No.1 filed suits and threatening the tenants as well as the family members claiming ownership over the properties. The petitioner and his brother have filed suit in O.S.No.310 of 2022 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for cancellation of gift deed. If any order is passed in the suit and the I.As in favour of the respondent No.1, it would result in multifarious litigations and create further complication and as such the petitioner is necessary party to the proceedings.

5. After considering the material on record, the Court below dismissed the said I.As, holding that as the suits are filed for eviction and recovery of possession and as the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, which is an independent cause, he has remedy to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and if the petitions are allowed, it would certainly affect the foundation of the case of the respondent No.1 and dismissed all the I.As. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petitions.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/proposed defendant submits that the father of the petitioner never executed any will in favour of the husband of the respondent No1 and the alleged will deed was fabricated and the signatures were forged for the purpose of creating fake document in order to usurp the property by illegal means and basing on the said will, husband of the petitioner cannot execute the gift deed in favour of the respondent No.1 with regard to the suit schedule properties. He submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the petitioner being a stakeholder in the property is entitled to come on record.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Court below ought to have seen that once there is direct interest in the lis, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of