IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.293, 298, 300, 305 and 308 of 2026 DATE OF COMMON ORDER: 06.02.2026 In C.R.P.No.293 of 2026 Between:

Vishnuvardhan Raju Penumetsa.

..Petitioner AND D.Chandrasekhar Reddy and four others.

..Respondents This Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 18.12.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.657, 658, 659, 660 and 661 of 2024 in O.S.No.473 of 2022 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.473 of 2022 (old O.S.No.590 of 2014) against respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5, their agents, servants, workers, whosoever they may be claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.26.00 guntas in Sy.No.1007/AA, situated at Khaitlapur Village, Kukatpally Revenue Division, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

4. After completion of trial, learned trial Court posted the said suit for judgment. At that stage, the petitioners herein have filed the interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.657, 658, 659, 660 and 661 of 2024 in O.S.No.473 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to implead them as proposed defendant No.5 contending that they are the owners and possessors of plot Nos.139, 126, 124, 138 and 125 respectively, each plot admeasuring 444.44 square yards, in Sy.No.1007, situated at Khaitlapur Village, Kukatpally Revenue Division, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Petitioners acquired the said land in Sy.No.1007 on the strength of the registered sale deeds executed by M/s.Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited. They are in possession of the said property.

5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff along with one Sri Ravinder Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.1457 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against Pilli Shivaiah and others for injunction. Later, it is renumbered as O.S.No.433 of 2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally. Thus, respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suits against different defendants and interfering with the possession of the petitioners over their respective plots under the guise of injunction. There is every possibility of respondent No.1/plaintiff interfering with the possession of the petitioners herein/plot owners under the guise of injunction to be granted by the learned trial Court in the subject suit.

6. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application contending that the suit is for injunction simpliciter. Therefore, petitioners can’t seek their impleadment in the subject suit. On consideration of the said aspects, vide impugned orders dated 18.12.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid applications.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners are third parties to the said suit. The said suit is filed for injunction simpliciter by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against respondent Nos.2 to 5 restraining them from interfering with the possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is not a suit for declaration of title. Therefore, petitioner can’t seek their impleadment in the subject suit.

8. It is settled law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis to his own litigation. In a suit for injunction simpliciter, third party can’t seek impleadment. The same was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Nak Engineering Company Private Limited v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 5 and relevant paragraphs are as follows:

“39. This apart