IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.930 of 2019 Date: 18.03.2026 Between Ahmed Khaleeduddin and 2 others … Petitioners AND Afzal Mirza Chishty and 6 others … Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by Order and Decree dated 19.02.2019 in I.A.No.307 of 2015 in O.S.No.397 of 2014 passed by the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri Azhar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed an application, that is IA No.307 of 2015, in OS No.397 of 2014, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking a prayer to implead the petitioners as proposed defendants i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 8, and the brief averments of the plaint are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs therein, filed a suit vide OS No.397 of 2014 against the respondent Nos.3 to 7 herein, seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs therein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in I.A.No.307 of 2015 contended that he along with their brothers and sisters are the joint and absolute owners of the property bearing Municipal Nos. 2-1-519, 2-1-518, 2-1-517, 2-1- 518/1, 2-1-518/2, and 2-1-518/3, admeasuring 1145 Square yards or equivalent to 957 Square meters situated at Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have creating forged and fabricated documents and filed the present false and frivolous suit. It is also contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 7/defendants have filed O.S.No.570 of 2015 seeking cancellation of the said documents, which is pending before the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Additionally, it is stated that the petitioner/proposed defendant No.6 is residing in Australia and he came down to India and came to know about all the illegal acts of the respondent/plaintiff and after knowing the pendency of the present suit, he filed the present application to get himself impleaded along with other petitioners and contended that the petitioners are in actual, peaceful, physical possession of the suit schedule property and that he is the necessary party to the present suit.

6. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in I.A.No.307 of 2015 and contended that petitioner/proposed defendant No.6 is not the necessary party or proper party to the suit schedule property.

7. The detailed contentions raised in the counter regarding the relationship among the parties, the manner in which they derived ownership of the property and issues relating to title cannot be gone into in the present proceedings, particularly in a revision. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are necessary or proper parties to the suit.

8. Admittedly, the suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. On perusal of the cause of action which discloses that the dispute arose in the context of the execution of a will, pursuant to which the defendants allegedly attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. It is specifically averred that on 26.01.2014, 09.02.2014, and 14.02.2014, the defendants along with their agents interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued and contended that the documents which are executed by this respondent by name Afzal Mirza Chishty and his br