IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.267 of 2022 DATED THE 1^st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Lalman Raj Kumari Bai and others …Petitioners And Raghunath Singh and others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.166 of 2021 in O.S.No.1549 of 2013, dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead Sri R. Priya Kumar as defendant No.7 in the suit was allowed.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the respondent Nos.1 to 3- defendant Nos.1-3 and respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner- plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the respondent Nos.4 to 6-defendant Nos.4 to 6 and respondent No.5 herein is the proposed party to the suit.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order and decree passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in law and caused irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that the application came to be filed is to implead the proposed party (respondent No.5 herein) in the suit. The Court below ought to have seen that no documents are filed along with I.A.No.166 of 2021 to implead the proposed party in the suit and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4.1. Notice got issued to respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is served but none appeared.

4.2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessary parties to the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

6. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1549 of 2013. Suit is filed for specific performance of contract to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein) to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and convey the registered sale deed, in alternate, the Court may pleased to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to return the amount of Rs.32,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

7. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit have filed their written statement and contended in paragraph No.4 that they have alienated the suit schedule property i.e., Ac.0-34 guntas in Sy.No.299/A, situated at Vattinagulapally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to defendant Nos.4 to 6 therein (respondent No.2 to 4 herein) by way of registered sale deed dated 16.02.2013 vide document No.1424 of 2013.

8. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed I.A.No.166 of 2021 stating that during pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein-respondent Nos.4 to 6-defendant Nos.4 to 6 have alienated an extend of Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.299/A to Sri R. Priya Kumar by way of registered sale deed dated 11.09.2017 vide document No.7726 of 2017.

9. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in I.A.No.166 of 2021 have filed their counter and opposed the application.

10. Learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff stating that R. Priya Kumar is a proper and necessary party.

11. It is apt to mention here that respon