COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Thota Siva Parvathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Adesh Varma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on the record.

2. Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 2023 is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad I.A.No.680 of 2023 in I.A. No.458 of 2023 in O.S. No.3276 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/proposed respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking impledment as respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in I.A. No.458 of 2023 in O.S. No.3276 of 2023, came to be dismissed.

3. Civil Revision Petition No. 3851 of 2023 is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No.681 of 2023 in O.S. No.3276 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/proposed defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking impledment as defendants No. 2 to 7 in the main suit vide O.S.No.3276 of 2023, also came to be dismissed.

4. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of O.S. No. 3276 of 2023 involve common questions of fact and law, and concern the very same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

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

I. BRIEF FACTS

6. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present revision in brief, is as follows:

a) The dispute originates from O.S. No. 3276 of 2023 filed by the plaintiffs seeking protection of their alleged possession over the suit schedule property bearing House Nos. 14-9-585/1 and 14-9-586, together with consequential relief of injunction restraining interference, particularly by the municipal authorities. In the said suit, the plaintiffs asserted title based on a registered partition deed and claimed to have obtained valid construction permission from GHMC, pursuant to which construction activity was commenced. Alleging interference and threat of demolition without notice, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 458 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction against the municipal authorities.

b) The defendant municipal corporation contested the matter by filing its written statement. At that stage, the present petitioners filed applications under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, seeking impleadment as respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in I.A.No.458 of 2023 and as defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the main suit, contending that they are the absolute owners and possessors of a distinct but adjoining property bearing old House No. 937/2, corresponding to new Door Nos. 14-9-580/1 and 14-9-580/1/A, admeasuring 803 square yards, supported by a chain of title deeds.

c) It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the plaintiffs, while claiming rights over House Nos. 14-9-585/1 and 14-9-586, are in fact, encroaching upon their property under the guise of construction permission obtained on the basis of documents alleged by them to be false and fabricated. The petitioners further alleged that the plaintiffs’ title documents, including the sale certificate and partition deed, are invalid and do not confer any lawful right, and therefore, the dispute cannot be effectively adjudicated in their absence.

d) The Respondents/plaintiffs opposed the impleadment applications by filing counters, contending that the suit schedule property is entirely distinct from the property claimed by the petitioners, and that they are raising construction strictly within their own property based on valid title and sanctioned permissions. It was further contended that the petitioners have no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property, and that their presence is neither necessary nor proper for adjudication of the limited controversy arising in the suit between the plaintiffs and