THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2291 of 2022

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 10.03.2022 in I.A. No. 427 of 2021 in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 passed by the XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)

Ranga Reddy District at Medchal.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendant Nos. 28 to

34 in the main Suit.

3. The respondent No.1 herein filed the subject suit as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 149 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC for Declaration and consequential Injunction.

4. The petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 427 of 2021 in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 (2) r/w Order XXII Rule 10(1) and section 151 of Civil procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to implead the respondent Nos. 31 and 32 herein as Defendant No. 37 and 38 in the above said suit. The said application was filed on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit for proper adjudication of rights inasmuch as the Respondent No.33 had transferred a portion of the schedule property to Respondents 31 and 32 through registered gift deeds.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application holding that the proposed parties i.e. respondents 31 and 32 need not be impleaded in the main suit and observed that the interest of the transferees in the subject matter was not substantial but peripheral. The trial court further observed that the entire schedule property was not transferred but only a portion was gifted. Moreover, the contesting defendants including the Respondent No. 33 were actively defending the case. Thus, the trial Court observed that the presence of the proposed respondents was not necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute, and the impleadment was not justified either in law or on facts.

6. Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 10.03.2022 the petitioners herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Achyuth Bharathwaj, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

8. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC by not impleading Respondents Nos.31 and 32 as Defendants No.37 and 38 in the suit, despite they being necessary parties to the suit; that the proposed defendants have acquired interest in the schedule property through registered gift deeds from Respondent No.33 during the pendency of the suit; that their presence is essential for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues in the suit and the counter-claim; and that the Trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding impleadment.

[

9. The petitioners further contended that any decree passed in the suit will have a direct bearing on the rights of Respondents No.31 and 32, who have acquired interest in the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings; that their impleadment is warranted under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as they have stepped into the shoes of Defendant No.33; that the reliefs sought in the counter- claim particularly the declaration of title and a declaration that the sale deeds dated 18.01.2008 and 04.01.1979 as inoperative and void have a direct nexus with the interest of the proposed parties; that the denial of their impleadment would result in depriving them of a fair opportunity to be heard and to defend their rights in the suit schedule property.

10. Per contra, the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff contends that the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and absence of merit, as the proposed parties, i.e., Respondents No.31 and 32, allegedly acquired interest in the suit property through gift deeds executed in 2016, whereas the present application seeking their impleadment was filed only in the year of