Telangana High Court
M/S. Kedarnath Cooperative Housing ... vs M.P.Vasanthi on 21 March, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.774 of 2025
ORDER:
The instant Revision Petition is filedinvoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The challenge is to the order dated 20.12.2024, in I.A.No.687 of 2024
in O.S.No.139 of 2023, passed by the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a petition
filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). The rejection was to the request of
impleading the petitioner herein as defendant No.5 in the original suit.
4. In the instant case, the original suit i.e. O.S.No.139 of 2023 has
been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 against the
respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 for perpetual injunction seeking an
order of restraint against the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and
their henchmen or anybody else for and on behalf of them perpetually
restraining them from any sort of interference in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3
over the suit schedule property.
5. The suit schedule property in the instant case is the land
admeasuring Ac.0.12.40 guntas or 0.124 hects., situated in Survey
No.10 (part) of Guttala Begumpet, Seri Lingamplly, Ranga Reddy
District. The suit has been filed by the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to
3claiming themselves to be the absolute owners and in peaceful
possession of the said property. The respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3
alleged in their plant that the respondents / defendant Nos.4 to 7 and
their henchmen are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession by
coercion and illegally trying to evict the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1
to 3 from the suit schedule property forcing them to file a suit for
perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner herein / proposed
defendant No.5 has sought for his impleadment as a necessary party.
6. According to the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5, neither
the respondents / plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 nor the defendants in the said
suit i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein are in actual ownership of the
suit schedule property or they had any cogent strong proof in
establishing their claim over the suit schedule property. On the
contrary, the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 contends that the
original owner of the property in dispute was Mr. K. Surendra Rao, who
by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 11.03.1982, had assigned
Ac.10-00 guntas to the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 and the
entire suit for perpetual injunction is nothing but a collusive suit
without disclosing actual factual matrix of the case only with an
intention of siphoning away the property which is otherwise in
possession of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5.
7. It was the contention of the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5
that subsequently he had come in possession of the suit schedule
property pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into between
Mr. K. Surendra Rao and himself, and the possession of the suit
schedule property was given to him. Meanwhile, Mr. K. Surendra Rao,
the original owner of the property, is said to have sold the property in
favour of M/s. Ravi Shankar Films Pvt. Ltd. However, on the ground of
the alleged agreement of sale and the conditions therein being refused
to be honoured by the authority concerned, the petitioner / proposed
defendant No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.740 of 1996 for specific
performance on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District,
at L.B. Nagar. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner /
proposed defendant No.5 on 14.11.2005. Against the said judgment
and decree in O.S.No.740 of 1996, a First Appeal was preferred before
the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), R.R. District at L.B.
Nagar vide Appeal Suit No.8 of 2006, which too was dismissed on
09.04.2014. Against which also, a Second Appeal i.e. S.A.No.846 of
2014 is filed before this High Court which is still pending consideration
and there is already an interim order granted by this High Court which
is also still in operation.
8. In the given circumstances, the question to be considered is, was
it justified on the part of the Trial Court to have rejected the petition
filed under Order I Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC by for
impleading the petitioner herein as proposed defendant No.5 in the
suit?
9. Admittedly, the factual matrix narrated in the preceding
paragraphs are not in dispute. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the
original suit i.e. O.S.No.139 of 2023 is only a suit for perpetual
injunction. As is known to all that a suit for perpetual injunction is
always a personal lis between the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) alone
and the claim for perpetual injunction does not mean settling of title
over the suit schedule property. Even if the suit for perpetual
injunction is allowed, the legal right of the petitioner / proposed
defendant No.5 as such would not get hampered or adversely affected
so far as the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5's claim over of title
and ownership of the said property is concerned. Even if the order of
perpetual injunction is passed, it would be binding only so far as the
defendants in the suit is concerned and in no way it would be binding
upon the petitioner/ proposed defendant No.5 or upon anybody else.
10. In the said circumstances, the question also to be answered is,
whether the petitioner herein is required to be added as an additional
defendant No.5 in O.S.No.139 of 2023 which in fact is only a suit for
perpetual injunction between the plaintiffs and defendants therein. By
impleading himself in the present suit, perpetual injunction would not
again give rise to any right, nor can the Trial Court adjudicate upon the
so-called title over the said property by the petitioner herein.
11. The reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain the present
Revision is the fact that if the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5
intends to protect their property or claim any right or title over the suit
schedule property claiming it to be theirs, it would be the petitioner
who would be required to file another suit. The right of the petitioner
cannot be decided in a suit filed by a third party against altogether
different person and the suit also being only to the extent of issuance
of perpetual injunction.
12. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that the view
expressed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impleadment
petitionfiled by the petitioner / proposed defendant No.5 cannot be
found fault with and the Revision Petition therefore deserves to be and
is accordingly dismissed. However, the right of the petitioner /
proposed defendant No.5 in availing appropriate civil remedies
independently against the plaintiffs and other defendants is left open.
13. 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: 21.03.2025
GSD
