Balaiah vs Smt. Beerla Sathyamma
2025 Latest Caselaw 472 Tel

Telangana High Court

Balaiah vs Smt. Beerla Sathyamma on 9 June, 2025

            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                                   ********

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024

Between :

Balaiah, s/o.Hanumaiah, Age 64 yrs.,
Occu: Agrlk. r/o.Marikal village,
Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district
and others.
                                                        ... Petitioners/petitioners/
                                                                         plaintiffs
            and

Smt.Beerla Sathyamma w/o. Ayyanna,
Age about 70 yrs., occu: Agrl.
r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet mandal,
Nagarkurnool district and others.

                                                  .... Respondents/ respondents/
                                                                     defendants


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                        :      09.06.2025


       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers :            Yes
     may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be :           Yes
     marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3.    Whether his Lordship wish to            :   Yes
     see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

                                       __________________________________
                                        LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
                                                 2

          * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


+CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024



%09.06.2025

Between:

# Balaiah, s/o.Hanumaiah, Age 64 yrs.,
Occu: Agrlk. r/o.Marikal village,
Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool district
and others.
                                                                ... Petitioners/petitioners/
                                                                                 plaintiffs
                 and

$ Smt.Beerla Sathyamma w/o. Ayyanna,
Age about 70 yrs., occu: Agrl.
r/o.Marikal village, Thimmajipet mandal,
Nagarkurnool district and others.

                                                            .... Respondents/ respondents/
                                                                               defendants

!Counsel for the Petitioners              : Sri Srinivas Velagapudi

Counsel for the Respondents               : Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:


(2020) 7 SCC 417; (1996) 5 SCC 539; 2005 (5) ALT 418 (SB)
                                      3


     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1366 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.03.2024 in I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 passed by the

I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and where

under the application filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2)

read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice was

dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for petitioners

and Sri Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for

respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents

herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision

Petition are that petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2018 for partition

of suit schedule property and during the pendency of the suit,

petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.249 of 2024 to implead the

respondent Nos.2 to 6 as proposed defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit and

to declare the registered sale deeds as null and void and also

consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and in the

prayer of plaint. Respondents filed counter resisting the application.

5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.03.2024 dismissed

the application with an observation that suit was filed for partition and

proposed parties have purchased the suit schedule property during the

pendency of the suit and therefore, the sales are hit by lis pendens by

operation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial

Court also observed that as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, for

each relief, a separate application has to be filed, however, in the

present application, petitioners have sought multiple reliefs and

therefore, same is liable to be dismissed and thus, dismissed the

application.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the trial Court

has wrongly placed reliance on the judgments cited by the respondents

reported in Ramesh Chawla v. N.Srihari and others [(2005) 3 ALD 4];

Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another [(2004) 1 SCC

191]; Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others [(1996) 5 SCC 539],

which have no application to the facts of the present case since in the

said cases, the pendente lite purchaser filed an application to implead

themselves as parties to the suit, whereas in the present, petitioners

filed an application to implead pendente lite purchasers to prevent any

further alienations by seeking appropriate relief to avoid multiple

litigations. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to

consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai

International Airport Pvt.Ltd., v. Regency Convention Centre and

Hotels Pvt.Ltd., and others 1, wherein it is categorically held that a

proper party is a party who though not a necessary party and whose

presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and

adequately adjudicate upon all the matters and dispute in the suit,

which squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the

trial Court erroneously came to a conclusion that for each distinct relief,

a separate application has to be filed in terms of Rule 28 of Civil Rules

of Practice and in fact, Rule 28 mandates that all consequential

amendments have to be sought in any application filed under Order I

Rule 10 of CPC. He would further submit that respondent No.1

alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent Nos.2

to 6 during the pendency of the suit and therefore, they are necessary

parties for proper and effective adjudication of the issues and therefore,

the impugned order is unsustainable and same is liable to be set aside

(2020) 7 SCC 417

and finally, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned

order.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the

following decisions:

i) Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and others 2

ii) Brig. Chatrapati Singh Dev v. Amulya Kumar Padhi and others 3

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the

trial Court has rightly dismissed the application on due appreciation of

the pleadings and contentions put-forth by both the parties and the

petitioners have failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the

impugned order passed by the trial Court. He would further submit

that admittedly, petitioners have sought three distinct reliefs in a single

application, which is contrary to Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. He

would further submit that the proposed parties are subsequent

purchasers of the suit schedule property after filing the suit and

therefore, the said transactions are clearly hit by doctrine of lis pendens

in terms of Section 52 of the T.P.Act and therefore, they are not

necessary parties for adjudication of the issues in the suit and thus, the

trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the revision is

devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(1996) 5 SCC 539

2005 (5) ALT 418 (SB)

10. Perusal of the record would disclose that petitioner filed

I.A.No.249 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 of CPC

and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking the following reliefs:

i) to implead the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as defendant Nos.2 to 6 in the suit;

ii) to declare the registered sale deed No.1758/2023, dated 08.11.2023, 1759/2023, dated 08.11.2023, 1760/2023 dated 08.11.2023, 1761/2023 dated 08.11.2023 and 1762/2023, dated 07.11.2023 as null and void and not binding on the petitioners; and

iii) consequential amendments in the cause title, plaint paras and also in the prayer of plaint.

11. In fact, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of

Practice, which reads as under:

"Rule 28. Amendment in pleadings:-

An application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 103, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules.

Provided that verbal corrections may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court."

12. Perusal of Rule 28 mandates that an application filed under

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential

amendments.