JUDGEMENT

Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.2 to 45 are not necessary parties. The said fact is also mentioned in the cause title of the appeal itself.

3. The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2018 in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(for sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ and the 1st respondent as ‘Defendant No.39/D.39’)

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1085 of 2017 against the 1st respondent and others for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 33 properties (for short, ‘the suit schedule property’). During pendency of the said suit, 1st respondent / Defendant No.39 had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.9 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in the said suit, to reject the p