THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 498 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of

2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. I.A.No.20 of 2023 was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w.151 of C.P.C by petitioner/plaintiff to implead proposed respondent Nos.5 to 7 as defendant Nos.5 to 7. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present civil revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that there is an order in I.A.No.126 of 2013 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 dated 12.02.2013 granting ad-interim injunction and when the said order is in force, defendants alienated the property and the transferee is necessary party to the suit. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. Alienations are made only to frustrate the efforts of the plaintiff. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit and she filed O.S.No.27 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.86 of 2013) for partition of the properties and to pass preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for ¼ share and also to pass preliminary decree by appointing Advocate Commissioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, she filed I.A. for impleading the proposed respondent Nos.5 to 7. The plaint was filed in February, 2013. During the pendency of the proceedings, implead petition was filed on 25.01.2023. In the affidavit, it is stated that recently, she came to know that her father alienated the suit schedule property in favour of Nalla Dayakar to an extent of Ac.2.18 guntas in Sy.No.429/A and Pakala Sridhar Reddy vide Doc.No.290/2013 to an extent of 426.00 Sq.yards. Respondent No.6 mortgaged the property vide document No.481/2015 for Rs.5,00,000/-. The properties alienated by deceased defendantno.1 are part and parcel of the suit scheduler properties, as such they are necessary parties to the suit and thus requested the Court to implead the proposed respondents as proper and necessary parties to the suit.

6. In a counter filed by defendant No.3, she stated that they do not know about the sale of properties and pendency of the I.A and defendant No.1 clearly stated the same in the written statement in the year 2013. Therefore, the contention of the implead petitioner that she recently came to know about the facts is not proper. The implead petition is filed after 10 years only to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. In a counter filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6 stated the same as stated by defendant No.3. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the application and it is observed that main suit was filed in the year 2013 and during the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.126 of 2013 is filed restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property from third parties but no interim order was passed by the Court and there is no continuation of docket of the said I.A after 17.03.2017. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he gifted Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.429/A. guntas to defendant No.3 and he sold away Ac.02.18 guntas in Sy.No.429/A. The alleged sale transactions which have been mentioned in the petition with regard to document Nos.186/2013 and 290/2013 were already came on record in the year 2013 and there is no interim injunction subsisting as stated by the petitioner. If the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff, then it would be automatically abide on the alleged vendors of defendant No.1 i.e., proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 and accordingly, dismissed the application.

8. Petitioner herein stated that she along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of defendant No.1 and they constitute Hindu undivided joint family and are in joint possession of suit sch