THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same Original Suit No.11 of 2015, between the same parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The C.R.P.Nos.559, 575 and 590 of 2018 are filed against the Orders dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon.

3. Heard Mr.R.K.Chitta, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Inspite of service of notice none appeared for the respondents, as such respondents are set ex-parte. Perused the record.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.11 of 2015 on the file of V Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon, seeking recovery of possession of the suit property. It is stated that I.A.No.68 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent No.20, I.A.No.80 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent Nos.23 to 27 and I.A.No.57 of 2015 is filed seeking to implead respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively in O.S.No.11 of 2015 to avoid multiplicity of litigation and not to create third party interest over the suit property and the same was dismissed by the learned Judge, on the ground that the Suit property is in Sy.No.544/B/1 and the respective respondents have sold the land in Sy.No.544/1 and it is not the case of the petitioners that the respective respondents are in possession of the Suit property. Assailing the same, the respective C.R.Ps.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to consider the grounds that were raised in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 to re-open the Suit for further evidence.

6. He further contended that the trial Court without recording proper reasons, dismissed I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 and failed to note that, the implead respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively purchased the property from defendant No.11 therein. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, while entertaining the injunction application, has directed the parties to the Suit not to alienate the suit schedule properties to the third parties till the disposal of the Suit. However, with a malafide intention to create third party interest in the present Suit and to create multiplicity of litigation and to cause loss to the petitioners the defendant No.11 has executed the sale deeds in the name of implead respondents, as such they are necessary parties, as they have stepped into the shoe of the defendants. Therefore, the proposed respondents/defendants are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, hence, the orders impugned are liable to be set-aside and sought permission to implead respondent No.20 to 27 in the Suit and permit the petitioners to amend consequential amendments in the plaint.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the trial Court, while dismissing the I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015, failed to record proper reasons and the finding of the trial Court at Para-3 is as follows:

“...it is not the case of the plaintiffs that, respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 23 respectively are in possession of the suit property”.

The case of the petitioners is that, with a malafide intention, to cause loss to the petitioners, the defendant No.11 has created third party interest in the present Suit, to create multiplicity of litigation, executed sale deeds in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.20 to 27.

8. He further contended that the trial Court erred in not considering the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. and failed to consider the aspect that, if the order under revision is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the Suit is decide on merits after