THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3101 OF 2025

ORDER

:

Heard Mr. S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr.Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.276 of 2025 in O.S.No.605 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘trial Court’). Vide the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the IA filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC read with Rules 28 and 29 of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking to implead himself as defendant No.6 to the suit. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.605 of 2023 are the husband and children of late Gollapalli Padmavathi, who died on 07.11.2020. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for succession in the capacity of being Class I legal heirs of the deceased. Pending the said suit, the petitioner herein, who is the brother of the deceased Gollapalli Padmavathi, had moved the IA which is under challenge, seeking for impleadment as defendant No.6, highlighting the fact that there are certain material facts having not been made by the plaintiffs, which in the long run may have an adverse impact on the claim of the petitioner, who has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.46 of 2024 for specific performance.

4. However, upon perusal of the pleadings and the submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is evident that the plaintiffs are the husband and children of the deceased Gollapalli Padmavathi and hence, they being legal heirs of the deceased Gollapalli Padmavathi is not in dispute. The petitioner’s relationship as the brother of the deceased is also not denied. However, sofaras the substantial relief sought for by the plaintiffs is concerned, it is only for a declaration declaring them to be the legal heirs and successors of the deceased.

5. This Court is also of the opinion that impleadment of the petitioner herein as a party to the suit may not be required as it is for the plaintiffs to prove their relationship with the deceased. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner of having an adverse impact on the suit that he has filed or in respect of any other material suppression or in respect of any claim that he has on the property which stands in the name of Gollapalli Padmavathi, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the said apprehension, the petitioner herein would be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies that he may have and one such legal remedy has already been availed by him by moving a suit for specific performance.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for interference of this Court to the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands rejected. Nonetheless, the right of the petitioner to avail other appropriate legal remedies would always be open.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

24.10.2025 Pvt