Telangana High Court
Kalamma vs Smt. B. Ram Bai on 20 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3651 of 2025
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed by the
petitioners/proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 aggrieved by the
order dated 15.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.213 of 2025 in
O.S.No.139 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad. For
the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as
arrayed in I.A.No.213 of 2025.
2. I.A.No.213 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to
implead them as proposed defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.139
of 2015. The suit in O.S.No.139 of 2015 was filed by the
respondents 1 to 3 against respondents 4 to 6 for declaration
of title and recovery of possession. The legal heirs of the
deceased Respondent No.6 herein have filed O.S.No.14 of
2025 seeking cancellation of the Judgment and Decree dated
08.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.139 of 2015, and for delivery of
possession. It is submitted that upon receipt of summons in
O.S.No.14 of 2025, the petitioners herein made inquiries with
respondents No.4 and 5, who are their vendors. During such
inquiry, respondents No.4 and 5 informed them about the
pendency of the above suit proceedings, the passing of the ex
parte decree dated 08.06.2016, and the related proceedings
before this Court. Thus, through the information furnished by
respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioners came to know about
filing of the above suit, whereupon they immediately engaged
the present counsel who is also representing respondent Nos.4
and 5 before this Court in C.R.P. No. 2845 of 2017 and C.M.A.
No. 6 of 2024. The present counsel is also appearing for
respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein in O.S. No.14 of 2025 pending
before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.
3. It is further stated that after coming to know about the
present suit through the plaint proceedings in O.S. No.14 of
2025, the petitioners instructed their present counsel, who is
appearing for them as well as for respondent Nos.4 and 5, to
file the present petition. It is further submitted that
O.S.No.139 of 2015 was initially decreed ex parte on
08.06.2016 against respondent Nos.4 to 6, notwithstanding
the fact that respondent No.6 had died long prior to filing of
the suit. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 thereafter filed I.A. No.19 of
2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking
condonation of delay of 195 days in filing a petition to set
aside the ex parte decree dated 08.06.2016, along with the
petition to set aside the said ex parte decree. The trial Court,
by order dated 19.01.2017, dismissed I.A.No.19 of 2017.
Aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred C.R.P.
No.2845 of 2017 and the same was allowed on 24.08.2023.
Consequent thereto, I.A. No.62 of 2024 filed by respondent
Nos.4 and 5 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated
08.06.2016 was dismissed on 10.06.2024. Aggrieved thereby,
respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred C.M.A. No.6 of 2024 before
the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Adilabad, and the said
appeal was allowed by judgment dated 02.12.2024. Assailing
the orders dated 02.12.2024 passed in C.M.A. No.6 of 2024,
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred C.R.P. No.1449 of 2025
before this Court, and the said revision is pending
adjudication. After allowing of C.M.A. No.6 of 2024,
respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their written statements denying
the claims and contentions of respondent Nos.1 to 3. They
have specifically contended in their written statements that
the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas was sold to
the present petitioners under a registered sale deed dated
31.03.2007 vide Document No.1489 of 2007 by respondent
No.4; and similarly, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.00
guntas was sold to the petitioners under a registered sale deed
dated 08.10.2007 vide Document No.4451 of 2007 by
respondent No.5. Further the petitioners have also purchased
agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas under a
registered sale deed dated 28.02.1996 vide Document No.473
of 1996 from respondent No.4. Respondent No.5, in order to
meet her family necessities, alienated agricultural land
admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas out of Ac.4.34 guntas to
petitioner No.1 under the registered sale deed dated
08.10.2007 and they were put in possession of the above
lands by respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the date of execution of
the respective sale deeds. It is further submitted that the
names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue
records, and their names have been reflected in the Pahanies
from 2008-2009 onwards to an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas and
Ac.2.00 guntas respectively. If the trial Court considers the
claim of plaintiffs and cancels the registered sale deeds, it will
cause prejudice to the present petitioners as they are the
subsequent purchasers of the said lands. Hence, requested
the trial Court to implead them as defendants to O.S.No.139
of 2015.
4. The respondents 1 to 3 filed written statement denying
the averments of petition stating that the petitioners therein
have not made out any case for impleading them in the suit
and it is filed belatedly. Most of the averments and allegations
contained in the supporting affidavit are false and baseless
and petitioners came to know about the suit through
O.S.No.14 of 2025 is not correct and the said suit is pending
on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, but in fact the said
suit is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The
contents of para 4 of the supporting affidavit with regard to
passing of decree endeavour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein
for setting aside the said decree and pending of matter before
this Court are not disputed. The document Nos.1489 of 2007
and 4451 of 2007 are false and sham documents without
consideration and no possession was delivered to the alleged
purchasers. In fact they are in possession and they are the
original owners of property. As such, requested the trial
Court to dismiss the said petition.
5. After considering the submissions, the trial Court
dismissed the petition observing that the averments in the
petition mainly relate to the grievance arising from the
judgment in O.S. No.14 of 2025, in which the petitioners were
defendants and the legal representatives of respondent No.6
had filed the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte, and all
proceedings in that suit were discussed in the present
petition. It was further observed that petitioners had earlier
filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with a
delay condonation petition, which was dismissed. Aggrieved
by that dismissal, they filed C.R.P. No.2825 of 2017, which
was allowed, and thereafter they filed another petition. They
also filed C.M.A. No.6 of 2024 and C.R.P. No.1449 of 2025,
which are still pending. The trial Court held that the
petitioners relyied mainly on the outcome of O.S.No.14 of
2025 without understanding the nature of the present suit. It
further observed that the plaintiff, being the 'dominus litis',
cannot be compelled to implead parties against his choice.
Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present revision petition
is filed.
6. Heard Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the trial Court without considering whether the
petitioners are proper or necessary parties to the present suit,
vaguely dismissed the petition. The petitioners herein are the
lawful owners of the property, if the registered sale deed of the
vendor of petitioners is cancelled it will cause prejudice to the
petitioners herein. He further submitted that implead petition
can be filed at any stage of the proceedings as petitioners are
proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, without
hearing them the issue cannot be adjudicated. In support of
his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munirunnisa Begum and others V
Pilli Mallaiah and others 1, wherein the relevant para reads
as under :
"19. It is apt to note that necessary party is one without
whom no order can be made effectively. Proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be made but whose
presence is necessary for complete and final decision. The
2024 (6) ALD 182
Intent of Legislature in bringing Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 is where the parties failed to make any
necessary and proper party as party to the proceedings,
either due to ignorance or due to any other reason, it is for
the Court to exercise its discretion under the said provision,
so as to render full justice to the parties without expressing
anything as to why it has not been done either by the parties
or by the learned advocates as well. It enabies the Court to
add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the
person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order
to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the
objects of the said provision."
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that there is no illegality in the order of trial
Court and it has rightly dismissed the petition. The suit is
filed in the year 2015 and the present petition is filed in the
year 2025 without explaining any reasons for such huge
delay. The present petition is filed only to delay the
proceedings and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the
petition as the document of vendors of petitioners itself is
forged one petitioners cannot claim the property though their
vendor. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss this revision
petition.
9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material on record, the petitioners herein have filed a
petition before trial Court alleging that they are the
subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule land for which the
plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of their vendor's
document itself, which is of the year 1996. The petitioners
herein purchased the property in the year 2007.
Subsequently, O.S.No.139 of 2015 was filed which was
decreed ex parte. Against the said order, C.R.P, was filed
which was allowed. Now the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are
contesting the suit, if the parties herein are not added as
defendants it will cause prejudice to them. However, the
observation of the trial Court is that no reasons are explained
by the petitioners herein except relying on the outcome of
O.S.No.14 of 2025. While dealing with petition under Order 1
Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has to see whether the parties to
the suit are proper or necessary for proper adjudication of the
lis before the Court. According to the petitioners, they
purchased the property from respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the
year 2007 through registered sale deed. The petitioners
herein are the purchasers of property through a registered
document and the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of
registered document of the petitioners herein. If the
petitioners' vendor document is cancelled, the petitioners
would lose their property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate to
hear the petitioners herein also. Hence, the impugned order
is liable to he set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting
aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.213 of
2025 in O.S.No.139 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge at
Adilabad. The trial Court is directed to implead the
petitioners herein as defendants to the suit. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.11.2025
Rds
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3651 of 2025
Date: 20.11.2025
Rds
