Telangana High Court
Mohd Bin Salam vs Pochamma Pushpamma on 13 March, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition Nos.433 & 454 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
These are two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the
petitioners under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the
orders dated 04.11.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.1077 & 1078 of 2023 in
O.S.No.329 of 2019 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Mr.Mohammed Adnan, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Perused the material available on record.
3. The impugned order in both these civil revision petitions
being passed on the same day. The parties to the dispute also
being the same, the plaintiff in these two civil revision petitions
is also the same, the two civil revision petitions have been
proceeded to be decided analogously by a common order by this
Court.
4. The two civil revision petitions have been filed assailing
the orders dated 04.11.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.1077 & 1078 of
2023 in O.S.No.329 of 2019.
::2::
5. The order passed in I.A.No.1077 of 2023 is what is under
challenge in C.R.No.433 of 2025, whereby the trial court had
rejected the plaintiff's petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C') seeking for the
impleadment of the proposed respondents as the defendants.
6. Likewise, the order passed in I.A.No.1078 of 2023 is the
order which is under challenge in C.R.P.No.454 of 2025,
whereby, the trial court had rejected the said I.A. filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. seeking
for impleadment of the proposed respondents in the pending I.A.
i.e., I.A.No.1642 of 2019 pending in the said suit.
7. Vide the two I.As., the petitioners had sought for the
impleadment of the proposed respondents who is said to have
purchased parts of the suit schedule property by different sale
deeds, those were registered in between the year 2004 to 2006.
The proposed respondents are the purchasers of the suit schedule
property much before or rather long before the suit itself was
filed i.e., in the year 2019, whereas, the sales were done more
than 10 years back.
::3::
8. The instant suit i.e., O.S.No.329 of 2019 is one which has
been filed seeking for specific performance of an agreement
dated 12.09.2014 against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in respect of
alleged undivided share of property. The suit was based upon the
alleged agreement for sale that was executed on 12.09.2014
between the petitioner plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in
the suit. The suit was filed as early as in the year 2019.
9. What is necessary to be appreciated at this juncture is that
the respondent earlier had filed a suit for partition and separate
possession on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, vide O.S.No.190 of 2015. In
the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff himself had filed an implead
petition seeking himself to be impleaded as necessary party.
However, when the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the instant suit
for specific performance, for reasons best known, when the suit
was filed in the year 2019, the petitioner did not think it proper to
implead them as a necessary party. Finally, the I.A. stood
rejected by the impugned order under challenge in civil revision
petition.
::4::
10. The contention of the petitioner is that the proposed
respondents are very much necessary for the effective disposal of
the suit filed by the plaintiff or else there would be further
complications that would be created and there would be further
multiplicity of litigation.
11. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the
necessity to implead this purchasers as proposed respondents is
also necessary in order to ensure that there is no further damage
caused from any further alienation that is made by the said
proposed respondents in respect of the suit schedule property
over which they are claiming themselves to be the owners by
virtue of registered sale deeds executed in their favour.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar.
13. What is necessary at this juncture to be taken note is the
nature of suit that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed. Admittedly, it
is a suit for specific performance of the so called agreement of
sale dated 12.09.2014. The proposed respondents are no where
::5::
connected to the said agreement for sale in as much as they are
not party to that agreement of sale.
14. In the given circumstances, the suit for specific
performance of the agreement for sale can only be susbtantiable
against the parties to have entered into an agreement of sale. It
cannot be enforced or invoked against the parties who are not
signatories to the agreement directly or indirectly.
15. Therefore, the question is would the proposed respondents
be necessary to be impleaded in a suit for specific performance.
If the implead petitions are allowed and the proposed respondents
are made as necessary parties and they enter appearance before
the court, where the obvious stand of theirs would be that they
have got nothing to do with the alleged agreement for sale and
that they have come into possession of part of the suit schedule
property by way of a separate registered sale deeds executed
more than 10-15 years back. In the event of such a natural
defence that the proposed respondents would take, the only
alternate that the petitioner/plaintiff would have is to amend the
::6::
relief clause itself and which would change the very nature of the
suit itself other than a suit for specific performance.
16. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the trial
court after considering the pros and cons of the implead petition
has decided to reject the implead petition.
17. In the factual matrix of the case, the said order passed by
the trail court on 04.11.2024 cannot be said to be unreasonable or
contrary to law. The implead petition may not be necessary to be
allowed in the present case considering the substantive relief
which the plaintiff sought for i.e. for the specific performance of
the agreement for sale and the proposed respondents not being a
signatory to the agreement.
18. Hence, the findings so given by the trial court cannot also
be said to be either perverse or bad in law. Even the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot
be applied in a straight jacket formula, considering the fact that
the suit herein is the suit for specific performance of contract and
the situation would had been different if the suit would had been
a suit for partition or for that matter a suit for declaration.
::7::
19. Hence, for the reasons, this court is of the considered
opinion that the two civil revision petitions filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff being devoid of merits so far as invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 where the
scope of interference to an order of the trial court is too minimal
and the petitioners having not made out any strong case so as to
interdict the impugned order within the limits of the supervisory
jurisdiction over the trial courts within its territories and
jurisdiction.
20. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are rejected. No
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 13.03.2025
AQS
