THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1171 of 2025

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.09.2024 in I.A.No.1026 of 2023 in Original Suit No.4 of 2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.10 in the above suit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 (plaintiffs) herein.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the petition which was filed by the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Rule 28 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court for impleadment as defendant No.12 in the suit.

5. Initially, the suit was filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 (plaintiffs) seeking for partition and separate possession to the parties to the suit, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants, who claim to be legal heirs of the original owner, i.e., Mr. Turab Ali; and to declare the alleged sale deed bearing Document No.254/1978, dated 24.04.1978 (25.04.1978) as null and void and not binding on the respondent Nos.2 to 4 (plaintiffs).

6. Pending suit, the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 has been impleaded as a necessary party pursuant to the impugned order which is under challenge herein.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent / proposed defendant No.12, who was sought to be impleaded as necessary party vide the impugned order, is in no manner associated with the suit schedule property and that he is not entitled for any relief of a share in the suit schedule property as well; and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the said I.A.

8. Perusal of the material on record, and what is admitted fact is that the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 who had been recently impleaded by the impugned order admittedly is one of the legal heirs of one Sardar Ali. This Sardar Ali is the brother of Turab Ali, of whom the plaintiffs and defendants are also legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of the said two brothers, viz., Turab Ali and Sardar Ali. Therefore, in a suit for partition, if any family member of the plaintiffs or defendants have sought for an impleadment that by itself would not create a right in favour of the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 who had been impleaded as a necessary party in the above suit.

9. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 would not have any right over the said suit schedule property, for the reason that there was already an oral partition done in respect of the joint property which was jointly owned between Turab Ali and Sardar Ali, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 would be entitled for whatsoever share that he would have in the property which has fallen to the share of Sardar Ali.

10. Moreover, this Court is of the considered opinion that these facts are matter of evidence and trial which can be proved and established before the Trial Court in the event if the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, and thereafter appropriate orders can be passed by the concerned Trial Court disentitling any share so far as newly added respondent /

proposed defendant No.12 is concerned.

11. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any prejudice whatsoever being caused to the petitioner’s interest upon the respondent / proposed defendant No.12 being impleaded as a necessary party. The Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 17.04.2025 Ndr