THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.374 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned csounsel for the appellant on admission.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the third party aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 in I.A.No.52 of 2025 in A.S.No.21 of 2025 on the file of the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Shadnagar, (‘First Appellate Court’). The appellant herein being third party filed the present C.M.A. along with leave petition in I.A.No.1 of

2025.

3. The affidavit filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 by the appellant/implead petitioner shows that he is a third party to the suit. The appellant herein intends to get impleaded as party to the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court prior to disposing of the implead petition filed by the appellant herein has disposed the I.A.52 of 2025 denying the grant of temporary injunction pending the appeal to the petitioner therein i.e., respondent No.1 herein. The appellant herein purchased part of the property in dispute from respondent No.1 herein, who was original owner and therefore, has interest in the property. The appellant herein is also in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, claims to be a proper and necessary party to the appeal before the First Appellate Court, since his rights are directly affected by the impugned order. According to him, grave prejudice and irreparable loss is caused by denying an opportunity to be heard to him, as he is bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute. It is also pleaded that the appellant herein acquired rights over the property without any knowledge about the litigation. Due to the impugned order, the substantial rights of the appellant herein are drastically affected as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are making efforts to interfere and dispossess the appellant herein. Therefore, the appellant intends to get himself impleaded in the appeal before the First Appellate Court. In view of the impugned order passed, the present C.M.A. is filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave of this Court.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was disposed of on merits after counter was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The appellant herein claims his rights in the part of the property in dispute and not the entire property from respondent No.1 herein. Respondent No.1 herein, who has interest in the remaining property after selling part of the property to the appellant herein is also expected to have interest and therefore, is contesting the appeal before the First Appellate Court to protect his rights. The appellant herein cannot seek better right and title than respondent No.1 herein.

5. A perusal of the record shows that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.275 of 2019 was passed on 19.12.2024 and the appellant herein is claiming rights over the part of the property under registered sale deed document bearing No.6372 of 2024, dated 10.05.2024. The appellant herein purchased the part of the suit schedule property at the fag-end of trial just before passing of the judgment and decree in the said suit and claims lack of knowledge about pendency of the suit. The affidavit does not reveal as to when the appellant herein has learnt about the passing of judgment and decree in O.S.No.275 of 2019 and filing of appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2025. The appellant herein cannot seek positive relief in the present C.M.A. and he can agitate for his rights against his vendor/respondent No.1 herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein by working out other remedies available to him under the law.

6. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant herein is not entitled for grant of leave for filing the present C.M.A.

7. In the result, the I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is also dismissed at the stage of admis