IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO

NANDIKONDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.717 of 2021

15^th DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Mr.B.Srinivas

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

and

1.Mr.B.Shiva Kumar

2.Mrs.B.Savithri

3.Mr.Bichala Arvind Kumar ...Respondents/defendants

4.Mrs.Bichala Vinoda

...Respondent/proposed defendant

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

assailing the order dated 12.04.2021 in I.A.No.62 of 2019 in O.S.No.149 of 2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”), wherein the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner herein praying to implead respondent No.4 as

proposed defendant No.4 in the said Suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of House No.3-1-16, admeasuring 24.8 square yards, situated at Saraswathamma Compound, Vinayak Chowk, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in I.A. No. 62 of 2019 in O.S. No.149 of 2009, contending that defendant No. 3 had transferred the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed defendant No.4 vide Document No.3572/2010 dated 24.11.2010. It is further contended that after institution of the suit and during its pendency, despite there being a temporary injunction operating against the respondents/defendants, they failed to abide by it in disobedience executed documents in favour of the wife of defendant No. 3, thereby necessitating the impleadment of the proposed defendant.

4. The respondent No. 4/proposed defendant filed a counter denying the averments made in the application, contending that she is a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration and, therefore, need not be impleaded in a suit for simplicitor injunction. It is further contended that the application is hit by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and that she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit; hence, respondent No. 4 cannot be impleaded as defendant No. 4 for adjudication of the case.

5. Upon consideration of the petition and the counter, the learned Judge dismissed the application, holding that the suit was filed for perpetual injunction based on the cause of action dated 23.11.2009 against respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who were alleged to be interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court observed that there was no cause of action against the proposed defendant and that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.

It was further held that the suit could be effectively proceeded with in her absence, and accordingly, the application was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed on the ground that the learned Judge failed to consider that the suit property and the property transferred in favour of the proposed defendant are one and the same, and that the transfer was affected during the pendency of the suit with an intention to defeat the interim injunction. It is contended that the learned Judge, without properly appreciating these facts, erroneously concluded that there was no cause of action against the proposed defendant and failed to appreciate that she is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the dispute, thereby wrongly dismissed the impugned I.A.

7. Heard Mr.Aadesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. No representation on behalf of respondents/defendants. Perused the record.

8. Admittedly, the suit was filed against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that on 23.11.2009 respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3,