Telangana High Court
V Muralidhar vs Prof Narasimha Reddy Retd on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions
is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of
together by way of this common order.
2. C.R.P.No.3788 of 2018 is filed challenging the order dated
17.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.228 of 2015 in O.S.No.330 of 2017
by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
L.B. Nagar.
3. C.R.P.No.1221 of 2019 is filed challenging the order dated
17.03.2018 passed in I.A.No.229 of 2015 in O.S.No.330 of 2017
by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
L.B. Nagar.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff
filed two interim applications vide I.A.Nos.228 and 229 of 2015
in O.S. No. 330 of 2017. I.A.No.228 of 2015 sought to implead
respondent Nos.2 and 3 as defendants, while I.A.No.229 of 2015
aimed to amend the plaint to include a prayer for mandatory
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
injunction against respondent No.1. The trial court dismissed
both petitions on 17.03.2018, respectively, observing that the
petitioner failed to explain the relief sought against respondent
No.3 (GHMC) and that their presence was not necessary for
proper adjudication of the suit. The trial Court held that the
proposed defendants were neither necessary nor proper parties
to the suit. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the
present civil revision petitions.
5. Heard Sri S. Agastya Sharma, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri A. Manohar Reddy,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial
Court erred in dismissing the applications, which sought to
implead respondent Nos.2 and 3 (GHMC) as defendants and
amend the plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction.
He further contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the
importance of impleading GHMC, which is necessary for
effective adjudication of the suit and that the observation of the
trial Court that the relief sought against GHMC was not
explained is incorrect, as the affidavit and representation dated
30-12-2014 clearly mention the relief sought. He further
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
submitted that the dismissal of the applications by the trial
Court has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, leading to
multiplicity of proceedings and potential conflicting judgments.
The petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order and
allowing the impleadment of GHMC as a defendant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial
court failed to consider the fact that the proposed defendants
are necessary and proper parties to the suit, and that their
presence is essential for effective adjudication and that the
failure to implead GHMC by the trial Court has resulted in a
denial of justice. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside
the orders of the trial Court by allowing these Civil Revision
Petitions.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the deceased
respondent No.2 in L.G.O.P.No.194 of 2015 was the absolute
owner of Plot No. 104 & 103 and President of the "Sai Cyber
Hills Welfare Association". He purchased 150 square yards of
Plot No.100 from the petitioner for valuable consideration and
was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said extent as
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
absolute owners. Subsequent to his demise, his legal heir has
been in possession of Plot No.104 & 103 and part of Plot
No.100. Therefore, there he prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal petitions.
9. This Court has carefully examined the submissions made
by both parties and the material available on record. The
primary issue is whether proposed defendant Nos.2 and 3 are
necessary or proper parties for adjudication of the petitioner's
claim. Defendant No.2 is the president of the welfare
association and an adjacent plot owner. However, the petitioner
is not claiming any right against him. To be considered a
necessary party, the presence of defendant No.2 must be
essential for the fair adjudication of the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent No.1. Since the petitioner is not
seeking any relief against defendant No. 2, his presence is not
required. Further, proposed defendant No.3 is GHMC, which
received a representation from the petitioner dated 30.12.2014.
The petitioner contends that GHMC should pull down the
structures erected by respondent No.1 after the disposal of the
suit. However, this issue is not relevant to the dispute between
the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner must first
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
prove his claim against respondent No.1 based on their
documents. If he proves the same, trial Court will give proper
direction. There are no averments to show that GHMC is a
necessary party for the adjudication of this dispute.
10. In light of the above findings, this Court upholds the
order of the trial Court dismissing the impleadment of proposed
defendant Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are
liable to be dismissed, as there is no illegality in the order of the
trial court.
11. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed
confirming the order dated 17.03.2018 passed in I.A.Nos.228
and 229 of 2015 in O.S.No.330 of 2017, respectively, by the
learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.
Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. COMMON ORDER
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3788 of 2018 & 1221 of 2019
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
