The court held that the impleadment of necessary parties, even at a belated stage, is permissible if no substantial prejudice is caused to the opposing party and no jurisdictional error is evident in the trial court's order.

ORDER

Heard Mr.M. Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order, dated 25.11.2025, passed in I.A.No.916 of 2025 in O.S.No.150 of 2016 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

Vide the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking impleadment of the respondent Nos.15 to 42 as the proposed respondents.

The primary contention of the petitioner/defendant No.13 is that the said application is moved at a very belated stage; secondly, it is being moved after the PW-1 was cross examined and in cross examination none joinder of necessary parties were highlighted; and thirdly, the petitioner/plaintiff was well aware of the legal heirs and now misrepresented that he has come to know about the legal heirs of the deceased shareholders.

Upon perusal of the order passed by the trial Court it reflects that one of the respondents infact had raised an objection stating that necessary parties has not been made in their objection petition under Order VII Rule11 of Code of Civil Procedure, which stood dismissed by the trial Court. Moreover, there does not seem to be any objection with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased and further there is also no substantial prejudice which appears to be caused to the petitioner / defendant No.13 before the trial Court.

For the reasons in the application which stood allowed, this Court is of the firm view that no illegality as such reflected in the order passed by the trial Court or any jurisdictional error is committed by the trial court while passing the impugned order.

In view of the same, the present civil revision petition stands rejected. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2016 and as such more than ten years old suit, the trial court shall make all endeavours to decide the suit as early as possible. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.