THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2894 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 12.09.2023 in I.A.No.237 of 2021 in O.S. No. 903 of 2007 passed by the II Additional District Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory application seeking to come on record as defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the main Suit vide O.S.No.903 of 2007. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the above suit vide O.S.No.903 of 2007 for declaration of title and recovery of possession vide O.S.No.903 of 2007 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’).

4. The petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 237 of 2021 in O.S. No. 903 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking permission to implead themselves as defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the above suit. The said application was filed on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit for effective adjudication of matter.

5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application holding that the petitioners/proposed defendant Nos. 9 & 10 herein, need not be impleaded in above suit. The trial court observed that the respondent No.1, 2 and their family members filed the above suit vide O.S. No. 903 of 2007 in respect of property situated in Sy No. 153/a admeasuring Ac.7-11 gts of Ravolkole village which is pending adjudication, simultaneously the petitioners herein also filed suit vide O.S. No. 1021 of 2016 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of property situated in Sy No.153/b admeasuring Ac.1-34 gts of Ravolkole village which is also pending adjudication, as such the Court below held that though, both the above suits appear to be proceeding simultaneously, the survey numbers, extent, and boundaries related to the subject properties are distinct and different from each other.

6. Further, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff’s in both the above suits are claiming two different properties, and the claim of the petitioners herein being plaintiffs’ in O.S. No. 1021 of 2016 are claiming land in Sy No. 153/b which is not related to property in suit vide O.S. No. 903 of 2007, held that the petitioners herein are not required for deciding the title and possession in O.S. No. 903 of

2007.

7. The trial Court held that the petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the relevance or necessity of their role or requirement in determining the issues of title and possession in suit vide O.S. No. 903 of 2007. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the petitioners could not be impleaded as defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the main suit i.e. O.S. No. 903 of 2007, as their addition was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter.

8. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 12.09.2023 the petitioners herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

10. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC by not impleading the petitioners as defendants Nos. 9 & 10 in the above suit, despite they being necessary parties to the suit; that they are entitled and has exclusive right to defend and protect the subject property; that the trial Court further ought to have afforded the petitioners an opportunity to participate in the trial, as no prejudice would have been caused to any party by such participation; that the petitioners herein had acquired interest in the above suit; and that their presence is essential for the effective adjudication of the suit; that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding impleadment.

11. Per contra, the respondents herein contend that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the impleaded