Telangana High Court
Palugucheruvu Mahesh vs Darga @ Karre Ailamma on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.895 OF 2026
DATE: 26.03.2026
Between:
Palugucheruvu Mahesh and another
...Petitioners
AND
Darga @ KarreAilamma and 12 others
...Respondents
Mr. P.Mounik Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
ORDER:
1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in I.A.No.150 of 2023 in O.S.No.529 of 2018 filed by the petitioners herein.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the Suit against the respondent Nos.4 to 13 seeking a declaration that the documents dated 05.08.1988 and 06.08.1988 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought for a direction to the defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 to 10 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule 'B-D' properties to the plaintiffs and for a perpetual injunction 2 restraining the defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 to 10 from alienating or changing the nature of the suit schedule 'B-D' properties until vacant possession of the same is handed over to the plaintiffs. In the said Suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.150 of 2023 seeking to impleaded themselves as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5.
3. The petitioners claim to be the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule 'A' property, as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5.
4. Since counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to make his submissions, the Court proceeded to hear the matter.
5. Upon perusing the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Paragraph No.7 of the impugned order clearly sets out the reasons as to why the petitioners had no cause of action to be impleaded as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5. The Trial Court, in fact, also indicated that if there is any separate cause of action, the petitioners have liberty to file a separate Suit against the defendants.
6. The reasons given by the Trial Court are correct for several reasons. First, the petitioner filed the I.A seeking their impleadment 5 years after the filing of the Suit. Second, the 3 petitioners claim to be subsequent purchasers of suit schedule 'A' property, whereas the Suit was filed for declaration and for the vacant possession of suit schedule 'B-D' properties, as is clear from the prayers in the Suit. Third, neither the submissions made nor the affidavit filed by the petitioners disclose any clear basis for seeking impleadment as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in the Suit, whereas the petitioners could have filed an independent Suit for declaration and injunction/direction.
7. Hence, the prayer for impleadment, as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in a Suit filed in 2018 for declaration and injunction is completely misconceived.
8. The provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require a clear basis for impleadment, either as necessary or proper parties. The petitioners have not been able to satisfy any of the requirements provided under the law.
9. C.R.P.No.895 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J Date: 26.03.2026 va