THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.766 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

Heard Sri Uzair Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Vinjamuri Ranga Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 673 of 2024 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the petition, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, to implead the petitioners herein as proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5, has been dismissed.

3. The main suit i.e., O.S. No. 673 of 2024 is filed for declaration of the plaintiffs/respondents as legal heirs of the late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui, who was himself a bachelor and died issueless. The suit was filed for declaration of legal heirs with respect to schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ immovable properties. The plaintiffs/respondents claim to be the legal heirs of the late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui, whereas, the petitioners herein are claiming to be legal heirs being sons of the deceased brother of late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui. The petitioners claim to be legal heirs of late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui and the same is denied by the respondents by way of counter in a vague manner without reference to relationship except referring to the allegations of the affidavit. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show that they are necessary parties as death certificate of late Sri Baber Siddiqui is not filed and that there is no document filed in proof of relationship of the late Sri Baber Siddiqui and late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. In grounds of the revision, it is pleaded that documentary proof is not necessary at the interlocutory stage, that the question of whether the petitioners are legal heirs are not an issue which has to be decided after full-fledged trial that the petitioners are nephews of the late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui and that there is failure in specifically denying the relationship by the respondents. Further, the petitioners pleaded that the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners have not mentioned the exact purpose for impleadment is baseless as they seek to implead themselves as legal heirs in relation to the suit schedule properties. During arguments in the revision, learned counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the contents of the affidavit of the petitioners and counter affidavit filed to state the case of the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners herein claims to be legal heirs of the late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui, being sons of his real brother late Sri Baber Siddiqui. Therefore, the petitioners sought the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners are strangers and that strangers cannot be impleaded and that there is a specific denial about the allegations made by the petitioners in the counter filed before the trial Court in I.A. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 673 of 2024. It is also case of the learned counsel for the respondents that in case the petitioners intend to seek any relief, there are other remedies available in the form of filing a suit for partition or filing a separate suit for declaring as legal heirs of the late Sri Mansoor Sikander Siddiqui. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others1 and the judgment of this Court in case of Ambramma v. Sidramappa² with respect to impleadment of parties in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein, it is held that a