IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1981 of 2019 DATE: 25.02.2026 Between Angajala Gaja Lakshmi …Petitioner AND M/s. Prime Properties and 2 others …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 31.12.2018 in I.A.No.61 of 2013 in O.S.No.898 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar.

2. Heard Sri P.V.V. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and none appeared for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is proposed defendant in O.S.No. 898 of 2001 who has filed an application Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead themselves as defendant in the said suit and contending that respondent No. 2 society has acquired the land admeasuring 70 acres in Sy.No.1007 situated at Kukatpally Revenue Village, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District under the registered sale deed document bearing No. 2548 of 1996 dated 15.04.1996 which was executed by the learned Sub- Ordinate Judge, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad in EP No.12 of 1996. Subsequently, the land was divided into plots and respondent No. 2 is no more owner of the property and respondent No.1, having the knowledge that the entire property was sold by respondent No.2, but they did not choose to make the individual plot owners as defendant to defend their case, as the petitioner is having an independent right and as she being a bonafide purchaser and owner of the suit schedule plot, she wants to defend her rights.

5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and that the petitioner without any manner of right or title has filed the present application claiming rights through respondent No.2 and not independently and the present petition is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.11595 of 2009 and 18163 of 2010 and the orders of the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad in CRP review dated 23.02.2018, wherein all third parties including the members of respondent No.2 society and their associations are directed to approach the appropriate forum for the remedies and that the petitioner is a necessary party.

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner Ex.P1 to P3 documents were marked and on behalf of respondent/plaintiff, R1 to R41 documents were marked.

7. The learned trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that unless and until the title of the petitioner vendor i.e., defendant No. 1 society, which is decided after full-fledged trial. The right and title of the proposed petitioner is a mere surmise and conjecture. Even for a moment, if it is presumed that the plaintiffs have no better title than that of their vendor or defendant No.1 society. It cannot be gone into at this juncture and the proposed party cannot step into the shoes of his vendor when the title of their vendor is not yet decided. Since it appears that defendant No.1 society, even without approved layout, had allotted plots to its members through various sale deeds and there are N number of allottees who wants to array as proposed defendants in this case under the guise of registered sale deeds in their favor.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that the only question for consideration in an application for adding the parties to the suit is whether the party seeking to get impleaded is a proper and necessary party, but the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order even without adverting to the specific question and hence the same