IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.624 OF 2026 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

Nand Kishore Agarwal, S/o. Late Pooranmal.

...Petitioner AND M. Narendar Reddy, S/o. M. Mahadeva Reddy and Five Others.

...Respondents Mr. V Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 12.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2025 in O.S.No.164 of 2018 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar (“Trial Court”), dismissing the said application filed under Order I Rule 10 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), by the petitioner for impleadment as the defendant No.5 in O.S. No.164 of 2018, which was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs, for perpetual injunction and separate possession.

2. The petitioner claims to have purchased land to an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas in Survey Nos.28, 29 and 30 situated at Kishanguda Village, Ranga Reddy District from the respondent No.4/defendant No.2 and others under registered Sale Deeds pertaining to the years 2022 and 2024. The petitioner sought to be impleaded in the Suit as the defendant No.5 under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC on the ground that the plaintiffs had been attempting to dispossess the petitioner of the subject property under the pretext of having filed the Suit and that the vendor of the petitioner was not diligently prosecuting the case.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the doctrine of lis pendens operates against transfers made during the pendency of litigation and that the rights, if any, of the petitioner, who is only a subsequent purchaser, would hence be subject to the outcome of the Suit.

4. The Trial Court was also of the view that the Suit for perpetual injunction can be decreed or refused to be decreed without the presence of the petitioner and further, that the plaintiffs had categorically opposed the impleadment of the petitioner and had claimed no relief against the petitioner in the Plaint, and consequently no cause of action could be made out against the petitioner.

5. This Court does not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the Trial Court, also in view of the fact that the Suit was filed in 2018 whereas the petitioner filed the application for impleadment in 2025 i.e., seven years later.

6. Paragraph No.12 of the impugned order further records that the petitioner had sought to make out a case regarding the validity of the subsequent Sale Deeds of the years 2022 and 2024 as well as the possession of the said property by the petitioner, which did not form part of the subject matter of the Suit and permitting the impleadment of the petitioner at that stage would enlarge the scope of the Suit and introduce a fresh cause of action, which is impermissible under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.. 7. The reasons given by the Trial Court in dismissing the petitioner’s application cannot be interfered with since the reasons are clear and within the bounds of law.

8. CRP No.624 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 06.03.2026 NDS