M/S Prime Properties vs Mr. Alam Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1762 Tel

           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.135 of 2022

                           ORDER

1. This revision is filed by M/s.Prime Properties-petitioner-

plaintiff herein aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2021 passed

in I.A.No.428 of 2021 in O.S.No.901 of 2001 on the file of the

learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners

therein seeking to implead as Defendant Nos.4 and 5 is allowed.

2. The suit O.S.No.901 of 2001 was filed by the revision

petitioner for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.06.1994 vide

Document No.8824 of 1994, for cancellation of the decree dated

27.01.1986 in O.S.No.253 of 1985 and for permanent

injunction. Initially, the suit was filed against the third

respondent herein and subsequently the other respondents

were impleaded as defendants. The revision petitioner herein

also filed O.S.No.898, 899 and 900 of 2001 for the similar reliefs

in respect of other schedule properties. Respondent Nos.3 and 4

herein are Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in all the above four suits.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein would state that they purchased

Plot bearing Nos.2B and 2C through registered sale deeds vide

Document No.423 of 1995 dated 31.01.1995 and therefore filed

implead applications in all the above suits. In fact, they are

claiming their rights through fabricated sale deed, which is

under challenge in O.S.No.900 of 2001 though they have

knowledge of the same at the instance of Respondent Nos.3 and

4 only. They filed the present implead application and the trial

Court erroneously allowed it contrary to the provisions of law. In

fact, there are several litigations between the petitioner herein

and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and members of the third

respondent society. The petitioner herein would further submit

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following directions for

disposal of O.S.No.901 of 2001 within six months.

a. The Hon'ble High Court vide orders dated 27.03.2019 in CRP No.391 of 2019 directed as follows "... Since the suit is of the year 2001, the said Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 08.05.2019 in SLP No.11052 of 2019 directed as follows "The Trial Court has been asked to decide the suits within a period of 6 months. We make it clear that individual impleadments of members in future will not, in any manner, either derail or delay further proceedings

in the suits. We reiterate that the trial court must decide the suits within a period of 6 months from today."

c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 19.08.2020 in Contempt Petition No.433 of 2020 directed as follows "Having heard learned counsel in all the three contempt petitions, we are of the view that the title suits OS Nos.898, 899, 900, 901 of 2001 pending before the first Additional Senior Civil Judge be taken up and decided within a period of six months from today.'

3. The petitioner would also submit that Respondent No.3

society without having any right and title over the schedule

property, executed many sale deeds intentionally to defeat the

directions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

individual implead petitions are being filing from time to time

only to derail the proceedings and to defeat the legitimate right

of the petitioner and if it is not curtailed, they file petitions in

batches and it results in gross miscarriage of justice. The

petitioner would further contend that Respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein are neither proper nor necessary parties to the suits in

O.S.Nos.898, 899. 900 and 901 of 2001 and as such their

implead applications ought to have been dismissed. The

petitioner would also contend that the trial Court lost sight of

the fact that Respondent No.3, predecessor in title of

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, is already party to the suits and

contesting the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all four suits

claimed to own two plots without specifying in which suit their

claim falls. The total extent of four suits is Ac.167.00 gunts in

Sy.No.1007 of Kukatpally Village and Mandal and the claim of

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is only in respect of 2000 square yards

and the aforestated applications were filed after twenty years of

knowledge of pendency of the suits. Though they are the

members of the Society, they do not have any independent claim

over the property. The suit is filed for cancellation of sale deeds

executed in favour of Respondent No.3 as Respondent Nos.1

and 2 are claiming rights through Respondent No.3 and that

they cannot be impleaded when Respondent No.3 is actively

contesting the suit, and therefore, sought to set aside the order

under challenge.

4. I.A.No.428 of 2021 is filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2

herein under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead them as

Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the suit. They mainly contend that

recently they came to know about the filing of the suit for

cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of the society. They

would further contend that as they have direct interest in the

proceedings and that they are the bona fide purchasers of Plot

Nos.2B and 2C they are necessary and proper parties to the

suit. In the counter filed by the respondent-plaintiff it was

contended that the petitioners in the application have personal

knowledge of pendency of the suit from 2001 onwards and that

they are claiming rights through the second respondent only

and not independently and in view of the specific order of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) Nos.11595 of 2009

and 18163 of 2010 and the orders of this Hon'ble Court in CRP

Review dated 23.02.2018 all the third parties including

members of the second respondent society and their

associations are directed to approach the appropriate forum for

their remedies, if any, and thus, requested to dismiss the

petition. Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. The trial Court on

considering the arguments of both sides, allowed the petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, this civil revision petition is

preferred.

5. The trial Court held that even doctrine of lis pendens

under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 squarely

applies to the facts of the case as the purchase by the petitioner

therein is prior to the suit, the proposed defendants are

necessary parties to the present lis and are entitled to be

impleaded as Defendant Nos.4 and 5.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused

the case law cited by both the counsel.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a

decision reported in V.NARAYANA REDDY V/s. SMT. ANI

NARAYANAN1 and submitted that Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC

confers wide discretion upon the Court. If the Court satisfied

that party sought to be impleaded is proper and necessary party

for adjudication of the issues and such party has a direct

interest in the subject matter of the litigation, invariably it is

required to implead such a person, as a party to the

proceedings. Learned counsel would argue that it is for the

Court to consider whether a right of a person could be affected if

he is not added as a party. He also relied upon a case law

reported in PANKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI ZALAVADIYA V/s.

JETHABHAI KALABHAI ZALAVADIYA2 in which it was held

that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC enables the Court to add any person

as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if his presence is

necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and

completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved

2009 (4) ALT 9

(2017) 9 SCC 700

in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one

of the objects of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10(2) gives

wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which

may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if

not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the

said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents would further

submit that proper and necessary parties can be added at any

stage of the proceedings. Initially O.S.No.899 of 2001 is filed by

M/s.Prime Properties against M/s.Bhagyanagar Co-operative

Housing Society Limited, but later M/s.Bhagyanagar Co-

operative Housing Society Plot Owners Welfare Association

represented by its Organising Secretary was impleaded as the

second defendant as per the orders in I.A.1864 of 2001 dated

31.03.2004. It seems subsequently Defendant Nos.15 to 40, 41,

43 and 44 are impleaded on 23.04.2012 vide separate I.As of

2012.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit

that there are 2000 plot owners of the Society and if they all go

on filing implead petitions, the suit proceedings will never be

concluded. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in

C.R.P.No.391 of 2019 dated 27.03.2019 in which it was held

that impleadment of petitioners leads to multiplicity of

proceedings and cannot be accepted and accordingly the

revision was allowed on 27.03.2019 by setting aside the order in

I.A.No.787 of 2018 in O.S.No.898 of 2001 with a specific

direction to dispose of the matter within six months from the

date of receipt of the order. Against which SLP was preferred by

M/s.Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Plot Owners

Welfare Association and the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave

direction to decide the title within six months.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend

that M/s.Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Plot

Owners Welfare Association is actively contesting the matter

from the beginning and as such there is no requirement for

impleading each and every plot owner, and if so, it leads to

protracting the litigation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are

members of the Society. Moreover, the suit pertains to the year

2001 and there was a specific direction from this Court as well

as from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to dispose of the matter

within six months. In spite of such directions from both the

Courts and ignoring the said judgments, the trial Court without

considering the same allowed the petition paving way to the

other plot owners also and it definitely leads to prolonged and

unending litigation.

11. No doubt, a petition filed for impleading of the proper and

necessary parties can be filed at any stage of the proceedings

and an opportunity is to be given to them, if they are directly

affected by the result of the suit. But in the case on hand, the

plot owners welfare organization is representing on their behalf

effectively and as such again each individual plot owner need

not come on record by way of filing implead applications and

they need not contest the matter independently. Therefore, the

order dated 28.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2021 in

O.S.No.901 of 2001 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly

set aside.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

costs.

13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

7th APRIL, 2022.

PGS