HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 531 and 419 of 2023 Date: 01.05.2026 Between:

Ahmed Athaullah (died per LRs) and another …. Petitioners AND Ambula Lalithamba and others …. Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Heard Sri. Rupendra Mahendra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Sri. E. Venkata Siddhartha, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents/proposed defendants. Perused the material available on the record.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners assailing the orders dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, in I.A. Nos.1066 and 1088 of 2022 in O.S. No.380 of 2021. By the said orders dated 28.11.2022, the learned Trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC r/w. Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Section 151 of the CPC seeking impleadment of Smt. Madhamshetty Sowmya, W/o Sri Gudikandula Ajay Kumar and Mr. Kasulabada Prashanth, S/o Sri Kasulabada Mohan as defendants No.4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.380 of 2021 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in I.A. No. 269 of 2021 therein respectively.

3. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same Original Suit i.e., O.S. No. 380 of 2021 and involve common questions of facts and law, they are clubbed together, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

5. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.380 of 2021 against the defendants seeking cancellation of Sale Deed and Perpetual Injunction along with Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.269 of 2021 (Old I.A. No.856 of 2013), seeking an order restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating or creating any charge whatsoever over the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Court passed orders on 28.04.2021 directing both the parties to maintain status-quo pending disposal of the I.A.No.269 of 2021.

b) During the subsistence of the said orders of status quo, the Respondent No.2 and 3 allegedly alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the proposed parties i.e., respondents Nos. 4 and 5. In view thereof, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed both the underlying Interlocutory Applications vide I.A. No.1066 of 2022 and I.A. No.1068 of 2022 seeking to implead the said purchasers in the main suit as well as in the injunction petition.

c) The Respondent No.2 filed a counter, whereas Respondent No.4 and 5 remained exparte. The learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties and perusing the record, dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Revision Petitions.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Trial Court committed a grave error in dismissing I.A.No.1066 of 2022 and I.A.No.1068 of 2022 without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances. It is submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to facts and law, as the alienations in favour of the proposed respondents were effected during the subsistence of a status quo order passed in I.A.No.269 of 2021. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court mechanically applied the doctrine of lis pendens without considering that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 deliberately alienated the property with a malafide intention of defeating the legitimate rights of the petitioners/plaintiff and creating multiplicity of proceedings.

7. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court ove