IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PET ITI ON No.139 OF 2026 Date:06-03-2026 Between Palle Jyothi …Petitioner and N. Muralidhar Rao and others ….Respondents T his Court passed the following

ORDER

Heard Sri B.N.Swamiji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 –

D.Hr.

2.The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC, assailing the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in E.A. 914 of 2023 in E.P.No.1 of 2017 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present revision are that 1^st respondent – Plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.241 of 2006 against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner herein – Defendant No.4 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.10.2005 directing the defendants to execute and register sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and also to declare the decree dated 07.08.2006 in O.S.No.103 of 2006 passed by Lok Adalath, Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, as collusive and not binding on him and deliver possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 25.02.2013 by the learned VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the trial Court directed the defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to execute registered sale deed in favour of 1^st respondent/plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration. The said suit was dismissed against Defendant No.3. Learned trial Court also held that 1^st respondent/plaintiff is entitled for declaration of the decree in O.S.No.103 of 2006 dated 07.08.2006 passed by the Lok Adalath, learned Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, as collusive and not binding on him in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. It is apt to note that there is no challenge to the said judgment and decree and it attained finality.

5. 1^st respondent has filed E.P. No.1 of 2017 against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 / defendant Nos.1 to 3 to execute the said decree and judgment. However, 1^st respondent/D.Hr. specifically mentioned in the cause title that the petitioner herein / Defendant No.4 and 4^th respondent herein/ Defendant No.3 are not necessary parties to the said E.P. During pendency of the said E.P., the petitioner herein/J.Dr.No.4 had filed an application vide E.A.No.914 of 2023 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC to delete the undivided share of land admeasuring Ac.00.16.75 guntas out of Ac.1.27 guntas in Sy.No.92 situated at Godumakunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District i.e. E.P.Schedule property at the time of executing the registered sale deed in favour of 1^st respondent/D.Hr., contending that D.Hr. filed the suit schedule property in O.S.No.241 of 2006 is joint family property and the executants of the agreement of sale acquired the said property from their ancestors. On 09.08.2023, she came to know that she is having 1/4^th undivided share in the E.P.Schedule property which is likely to be executed as per the decree. She is not a party to the suit agreement of sale and the same is not binding on her. As per the amended decree, the D.Hr. sought the relief only against J.Dr.Nos.1 and 2 / Defendant Nos.2 and 3. One of her family members filed O.S.No.103 of 2006 and obtained award in Lok Adalat on compromise. The D.Hr. filed an application during pendency of the suit, to set aside the award passed in O.S.No.103 of 2006 as the same was obtained in collusion and accordingly, the trial Court set aside the said Award. Thus, she along with all their family members are having undivided share in their ancestral properties. The E.P. is filed against J.Dr.Nos.1 and 2 and even though the D.Hr. is no