HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ********

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024 Between :

Balaiah, s/o.Hanumaiah, Age 64 yrs., Occu: Agrlk. r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district and others.

… Petitioners/petitioners/

plaintiffs and Smt.Beerla Sathyamma w/o. Ayyanna, Age about 70 yrs., occu: Agrl.

r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet mandal, Nagarkurnool district and others.

…. Respondents/ respondents/

defendants DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 09.06.2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether his Lordship wish to : Yes see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY +CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024 %09.06.2025 Between:

# Balaiah, s/o.Hanumaiah, Age 64 yrs., Occu: Agrlk. r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district and others.

… Petitioners/petitioners/

plaintiffs and $ Smt.Beerla Sathyamma w/o. Ayyanna, Age about 70 yrs., occu: Agrl.

r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet mandal, Nagarkurnool district and others.

…. Respondents/ respondents/

defendants !Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Srinivas Velagapudi Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

(2020) 7 SCC 417; (1996) 5 SCC 539; 2005 (5) ALT 418 (SB)

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.03.2024 in I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and where under the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2018 for partition of suit schedule property and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.249 of 2024 to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as proposed defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit and to declare the registered sale deeds as null and void and also consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and in the prayer of plaint. Respondents filed counter resisting the application.

5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.03.2024 dismissed the application with an observation that suit was filed for partition and proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the sales are hit by lis pendens by operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial Court also observed that as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, for each relief, a separate application has to be filed, however, in the present application, petitioners have sought multiple reliefs and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed and thus, dismissed the application.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgments cited by the respondents reported in Ramesh Chawla v. N.Srihari and others [(2005) 3 ALD 4]; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another [(2004) 1 SCC 191]; Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others [(1996) 5 SCC 539], which have no application to the facts of the present case since in the said cases, the pendente lite purchaser filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the suit, whereas in the present, petitioners filed an application to implead pendente lite purchasers to prevent any fu