Palugucheruvu Mahesh vs Darga @ Karre Ailamma
2026 Latest Caselaw 120 Tel

Telangana High Court

Palugucheruvu Mahesh vs Darga @ Karre Ailamma on 26 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD


 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.895 OF 2026

                        DATE: 26.03.2026

Between:

Palugucheruvu Mahesh and another
                                                       ...Petitioners
AND

Darga @ KarreAilamma and 12 others
                                                     ...Respondents

Mr. P.Mounik Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. Manjiri S. Ganu,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.



ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated

17.02.2025 passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in I.A.No.150 of 2023 in

O.S.No.529 of 2018 filed by the petitioners herein.

2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the Suit against

the respondent Nos.4 to 13 seeking a declaration that the

documents dated 05.08.1988 and 06.08.1988 are null and void

and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought

for a direction to the defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 to 10 to vacate and

handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule 'B-D'

properties to the plaintiffs and for a perpetual injunction

restraining the defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 to 10 from alienating or

changing the nature of the suit schedule 'B-D' properties until

vacant possession of the same is handed over to the plaintiffs.

In the said Suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.150 of 2023

seeking to impleaded themselves as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4

and 5.

3. The petitioners claim to be the subsequent purchasers of

the suit schedule 'A' property, as submitted by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5.

4. Since counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to

make his submissions, the Court proceeded to hear the matter.

5. Upon perusing the impugned order passed by the Trial

Court, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order.

Paragraph No.7 of the impugned order clearly sets out the

reasons as to why the petitioners had no cause of action to be

impleaded as the proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5. The Trial

Court, in fact, also indicated that if there is any separate cause

of action, the petitioners have liberty to file a separate Suit

against the defendants.

6. The reasons given by the Trial Court are correct for

several reasons. First, the petitioner filed the I.A seeking their

impleadment 5 years after the filing of the Suit. Second, the

petitioners claim to be subsequent purchasers of suit schedule

'A' property, whereas the Suit was filed for declaration and for

the vacant possession of suit schedule 'B-D' properties, as is

clear from the prayers in the Suit. Third, neither the

submissions made nor the affidavit filed by the petitioners

disclose any clear basis for seeking impleadment as the

proposed plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in the Suit, whereas the

petitioners could have filed an independent Suit for declaration

and injunction/direction.

7. Hence, the prayer for impleadment, as the proposed

plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in a Suit filed in 2018 for declaration and

injunction is completely misconceived.

8. The provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

require a clear basis for impleadment, either as necessary or

proper parties. The petitioners have not been able to satisfy any

of the requirements provided under the law.

9. C.R.P.No.895 of 2026, along with all connected

applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

___________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J Date: 26.03.2026 va