THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1649 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri G. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.

Jithender, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, (‘Trial Court’), in I.A.No.815 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017, wherein the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. by the petitioner herein to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein filed suit against respondent No.2 herein for declaration of title, recovery of possession and correction of relevant entries in house tax revision register for the year 1998-99 of Gram Panchayath of Ranjole Village. During pendency of the said suit respondent No.2 herein executed a gift settlement deed bearing document No.8087/2021, dated 29.11.2021 in favour of the petitioner herein, who is none other than his son. The petitioner claims to have acquired rights in the suit schedule property under the aforesaid registered gift settlement deed and therefore, he is necessary party to the suit, as such filed the implead petition, which is under revision.

4. Respondent No.1 herein opposed the implead petition alleging that respondent No.2 is not lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he has no right and title to transfer the said property to his son. It is further alleged that only to protract the litigation and to harass respondent No.1 fictional and illegal documents are created. The evidence of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein was closed and matter came up for evidence of defendant/respondent No.2 herein and after said evidence was closed on 27.02.2022 and when the matter stood posted for arguments on 25.07.2024, the implead petition under revision is filed by the petitioner by colluding with respondent No2. It is further pleaded that the petitioner is bound by the outcome of the suit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as a pendente lite transferee.

5. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the implead petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

6. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner reiterated that he acquired rights in the suit schedule property under the gift settlement deed from his father under a document, which is registered, and the Trial Court failed to consider the said document. It is urged that the petition was dismissed by the Trial Court on the sole ground that the petition to implead was filed at a belated stage to protract proceedings. It is pleaded that the direct interest of the petitioner in the suit schedule property outweighs the delay in the disposal of the suit. Further, as per Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C., an implead petition can be preferred at any stage of the suit proceedings and discretion is bestowed on the Court to allow or reject the said application. There is no specification about at what stage the implead petition has to be filed. In fact, the implead petition can be filed even at appellate stage. It is further pleaded that in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Trial Court held that neither party can deal with the suit schedule property in any manner when the same is pending and it is also held that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the suit, as such the implead petition was dismissed. It is pleaded that the theory of dominus litus cannot be overstretched while impleading parties when their rights are involved. It is also pleaded that the petitioner cannot be bound by the decree without having opportunity of being heard. The petitioner is an Engineer by profession and is residing at Hyderabad and did not have knowledge about suit between respondent Nos.1 and 2 pending before the Co