IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : HYDERABAD * * *

C.R.P. No.1240 of 2019 Between:

Penchala Devender, S/o.Madhav, aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-5-7, Rangshaipet, Warangal.

Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff VERSUS

1.Bandaru Prabhakar, S/o.Laxminarayana, Aged about 52 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.17-11-240, Ursu, Subash Nagar, Warangal & 5 others..

Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 18.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA + C.R.P. No.1240 of 2019 % 18.09.2025 # Between:

Penchala Devender, S/o.Madhav, aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.19-5-7, Rangshaipet, Warangal.

Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff VERSUS $1.Bandaru Prabhakar, S/o.Laxminarayana, Aged about 52 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.17-11-240, Ursu, Subash Nagar, Warangal & 5 others..

Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.V.N.Narayana Rao Learned counsel for the petitioner.

^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr.A.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mr.C.V.L.N.Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents.

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 (2002) 6 SCC 16] 2 (2010) 7 SCC 417

3 1998 SCC Online Bom 609 4 1998 SCC Online Bom 609

5 2003 (2) SCC 274 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1240 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order, dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.583 of 2018 in O.S.No.947 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, wherein the application filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the petitioner therein as defendant No.7 was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.947 of 2012 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their followers and agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and ownership of the revision petitioner over suit schedule property and also restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 therein from alienating and executing the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 therein. During pendency of the said suit, an I.A.No.583 of 2018 which is the subject matter of the present revision is filed by respondent No.1 herein to implead him as defendant No.7 in the suit and for consequential amendment of the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that initially the suit schedule property was purchased by the revision petitioner along with one Mr. Chenda Manohar and respondent No.1 herein from Bandaru Venkateshwarlu and others. Further there was an oral agreement and mutual understanding between them which is agreed to abide by them and inspite of purchasing the said property by all of them the sale deeds were registered in the name of Mr. Chenda Manohar and the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner and Mr. Chenda Manohar sold away the said lands and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 and Mr.Chenda Manohar have apportioned the sale proceedings without any disturbances. It is further stated that there were negotiations and the said negotiations were reduced in writing and the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 signed on the said document and in furtherance of the said document, another document was also executed on 28.02.2017. It is further stated that in the panchayath, which was held on 28.02.2017, decided that out of Ac.16.05 guntas, the revision petitioner and Mr.Chenda Manohar has sold away the land to an extent of Acs.10.00gts., to Bhavathi Educational Society and the remaining land to an extent of Acs.6.05gts. is available at t