THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

26.06.2025 in I.A.No.587 of 2025 in O.S.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The Suit in O.S.No.18 of 2014 was filed for specific performance of contract, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit was filed against the respondents No.2 to 6. The respondent No.1 herein has filed I.A.No.587 of 2025 in O.S.No.18 of 2014 to implead itself as a party to the suit on the ground that the suit schedule property i.e., open plots in Survey Nos.47, 49, 115, 129, 198-P, 205, 209 and 211 have been left for public purposes (park and playground), as per the layout plan LP.No.52/1995 and therefore, it is the owner of the said property and the plaintiff is trying to encroach the property of the municipal corporation and therefore, it is a necessary and proper party to the suit. The plaintiff has filed a counter affidavit stating that it is a suit of specific performance and therefore, the proposed respondent has no locus standi to get impleaded in the suit. It is submitted that only parties to the contract can be impleaded to a suit filed for specific performance of a contract. The trial Court, however, has allowed the said I.A., by observing that the petitioner in the I.A., is a necessary party to the suit for just adjudication of the suit. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the submissions made above, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Others, Civil Appeal No.2831 of 2005, dated 25.04.2005, in support of his contentions that under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C., the necessary parties to the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract, or if they are dead their legal representatives, as also a person who has purchased a contracted property from the vendor and that a purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of the vendor is, however, not a necessary party. The tests to be satisfied for determining the question of who is a necessary party are, there must be a right to some relief

against such party in respect of the controversies involved in proceedings and no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. He therefore, prayed that the implead petition be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents is also heard, who supported the impugned order.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the land originally belongs to Y.Narayana and B.Rajender, who formed a layout under the Layout Plan No.52/95, which consisted of 166 plots with 33% designated for roads and open spaces. It is noticed that as per G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 14.03.2006, the open spaces are to be transferred to the Municipality via a registered gift deed and therefore, the Municipal Corporation is the owner of the open spaces and roads. In this case, the suit is filed not just for specific performance of a contract but is also for permanent and temporary injunction. In such a case, the parties who are in possession of the suit schedule property are also proper and necessary parties. Admittedly, in this case, the suit schedule property are open plots and therefore, the Municipal Corporation who is the owner and claim to be the possessor of such open plots is to be made as party to the suit. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stan