Telangana High Court
M/S Whitefield Homes Private Limited vs M. Yadagiri on 7 August, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2636 and 2638 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Kiran Palamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner
in both the Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The instant Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common
order dated 01.05.2025, in I.A.Nos.2715 and 2716 of 2024 in
O.S.No.826 of 2013, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. Vide the impugned common order; the Court below dismissed
the two petitions filed by the petitioner herein, one under Order I
Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') read with
Section 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking for impleadment of
proposed respondent No.12 Union Bank of India as a necessary
party in the suit, and the other petition under Order VI Rule 17 of
CPC seeking for amending the plaint with all consequential
amendments.
4. The suit is one which was instituted in the year 2013 seeking
for perpetual injunction and also for cancellation of the sale deeds.
The suit is pending for almost 12 years, and it is now that the
petitioner has filed the instant two I.As. seeking for impleadment of
the Union Bank of India and permitting the petitioner to amend the
plaint with all consequential amendments.
5. The impleadment of Union Bank of India was on the ground
that defendant Nos.1 to 6 have meanwhile sold the property to the
defendant Nos.8 to 11 and defendant Nos.8 to 11 have further
mortgaged the property with Union Bank of India as there was a
default in repayment of loan with the Union Bank of India and Union
Bank of India initiating SARFAESI proceedings and also seeking
amendment of the plaint with all consequential amendments.
6. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that taking into
consideration the reasons assigned by the Court below in the
impugned common order, more particularly in paragraph Nos.24, 25
and 26, the same is a well-reasoned order with all justifications for
not allowing the two I.As. filed by the petitioner herein.
7. Further, a plain reading of the two judgments relied upon by
the petitioner in the case of Mumbai International Airport
Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels
Private Limited and Others 1 and Central Bank of India and
Another vs. Prabha Jain and Others 2 would go to show that the
said judgments were decided under an entirely different contextual
backdrop, unlike in the present case and also unlike the nature of
relief sought for in the suit which is pending before the Court below.
8. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no strong case for interference has been
made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the
impugned common order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil
Revision Petitions thus fail, and are accordingly, dismissed.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 07.08.2025
GSD
(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 417
(2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 38
