CRP/298/2026 of Smt. K. Usha Vs Sri D. Chandrasekhar Reddy on 6 February 2026

1. Sri D. Chandrasekhar R*dy, g/9 F_ql f!.OOV Aged about 52 years. Occ_ Business, R./o 1st Froor, proi rrto r 1 15, Road r.rols+. .luoiree xirrr, iyJJiroro

2. lntivenka Lakshmaiah sio yefliah Aged about 49 years, occ- Not Known, R/o H.No_12-8 69 Khar aur Vr age, K"ukatpa y, R.R_ Disirict.

3. lntivenka Yadaiah, S/o Bararah. Aged about s5 years, R/o H.No.12-g-66i1 . Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpa y. R.R.brstrict.

4. lntivenka Ramutu. S/o Bataiah. Aged- Not known. R/o H.No.12_gS6/1. Khaitlaur Village_ Kukatpa y, R.RlDistrict.

5. Harish Rao, S/o- Not Known. Aged- 32 years, Occ_ Not Known, R/o_ Krishna Residency, Punjab National Bank. Bldg;fiAanovikas Naqar. Colonv. Asmathpet lvlain Road, Bowenpally, Secundrabad. tA NO: .t OF 2026

CIVIL REVISION PETI TION NO: 293 0F 2026 Petition under Section 1 5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in o S No. 413 of 2oz2 pending on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge tvledchal- Mal-kajgiri District at Kukatpally pending the disposat of the CRp No. of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S DURGA BHAVANT KONDASANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: BHAVANT SANKAR N

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 29A OF 2026 AND

Petition under Adtcre 222 of the constitution o[ India aqgrieved by the order dated- 1811212025 passed in lA No. 660 of zoz4 in os No. 47"3-120 22 on the rrre or tri- -- Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchar-tr,latka;giri District ai xrluipr[y Betwec n: Smt K Usha, Wo Gopal Krishna aged about 62 yeais Occ Housewife, R/o H No 540-8 BHEL Township, Ramicnanoriprlin, HyOeraOaa ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PROPOSED DEFENDANT Sri D. Chandrasekhar Reddy,. S/o Ral Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Billg::, R/o 1st Ftoor, ptoi No 1.1 15, Roaci r.io-s+ liuir.. Hirrr. HyJeraoaa 500034

lntivenka Lakshmaiah, S/o yelliah Aged about 49 years. Occ Not Known, R/o H. No 12-8-69 Khaiflaur Vi age, K"ukatp.r y R d -distrrct Intrvenka Yadaiah, S/o Balaiah, Aged about 55 years. R/o H No 1Z_g 6611. Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpally, RR. brstrrct lntivenka Ramulu, S/o Balaiah,Aged Not known R/o H No 12,8 66/1 , Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpally, RR."Distrrct Hansh Rao, S/o. Not Known, Aged 32 years, Occ Not Known R/o Krishna Resrdency, Punjab National Ba;k, Btdg. fr. rnou,l.i. r.f ,igar Cotony /\smathpet Main Road, Bowenpally. S6cunrtralrad ... RESPONDENTS/RES PCI..I DE N iS/DEFEI.IDANT 1 TO 4

Petrtion under Section 151 cpc prayrng trrat r. the crrcrrmstances stated tn tlte affidavit filed in support of the petitro.. ih. Hrgh court nray be preased to Stay of all further proceedings in o.s irro 473 of 2022 pendnq on the frre of the Ir Addrtronal Dist.ct and sessions Judge rVledchar IVrarkalgrrr Distrrct at Kukatpaly pending the disposal of the CRp No. of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S DURGA BHAVANT KONDASANT Counsel for the Respondent No.1: BHAVANT SANKAR N Counsel for the Respondent No.2 TO 5: NONf

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated- 1811212025 passed in lA No, 659 of 2O24 in OS No. 473t2O22 on rhe fite of lll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkaigiri District at Kukatpally Between: Smt. Arekatla Asha Devr, W/o A. Sudhakar, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio H-503, Aparna Sarovar, Nallagandla Serilingampally, R.R. Dist, Hyderabad. AND ...PET|TIoNER/PET|TIONER/PROPOSED DEFENDANT

1. Sri D. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Raj Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1St Floor, Plot No.1 1 15, Road No.54, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

CIVIL REVISION PETITIoN NO: 300 OF 2026

2. Intivenka Lakshmaiah, S/o Yellrah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Not Known, R/o H-No.12-8-69 Khaitlaur Vrllage, Kukatpally, R.R. District.

3. lntivenka Yadaiah, S/o Balaiah Aged about 55 years, Rio H.No.12-8-66i1, Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpally, R.R Distnct

4. lntivenka Ramulu, S/o Balarah. Aged Not known, R/o H.No.12-8-66/1 , Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpally. R R Drstnct

5. .Harish Rao, S/o. Not Known. Agecl. 32 years. Occ. Not Known, R/o. Krishna Residency, Punjab National Bank Bldg, [\/anovikas Nagar. Colony, Asmathpet Main Rc Bowenpally, Secundrabad lA NO:'l OF 2026 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petrlion, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in O S No. 473 of 2022 pending on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge lVledchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally pending the disposal of the CRP No of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S DURGA BHAVANI KONDASANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: BHAVANI SANKAR N

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 305 0F 2026 Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of rndia agg.eved by the order date.d 18t12t2025 passed in rA No. osa oiiora in os"r{" atuzlozz-oi'li" t,t" of lllAddrtionar District and Sessions ruag" L/"a"h rr-ri/la rr<a;g, ii Districlt'ai " "" Kukatpally Between: Sri Sita Ranta.Ra]u penumetsa., S/o p. Venkata Rama Raiu, Aqed about tj1 years occ Asricutture l{g ftot No.1 1_B rra,rro -e s S;";;;;'e;r"";li'ro, rrade Centre, Lane No 3,ygllgI-r.S_{, S"riiingl;prily, Hyderabad AND ...pETITtONER/pETtTtoNER/pRo-posED DEFENDANT 1 Sn D Chandrasekhar R*dy,r.S/9 R?j Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ []usiness R/o'1st Froor, ptoi tto.ttts, noia'r.ro"sa Lroir"" iiir.lu"yo-.i]oro 500034

2 lrrtrvenka Lakshmaiah,,..S/o.y.elliah. Aged about 49 years, Occ Not Known. il/o H No I 2-8-69 Khaiflaur Vi age, Xitrtp"f f V 'n n. Drstrict :] lntrve-nka Yadaiah,, S/o Ba.laiah, Ag_gd about 55 years, R/o I_l No t2 8 66/1, Kl,,rrllarrr Vrllage, Kukatpally, R.R. "Oistrct. - -- ' 4 lrrtivenka .Rarnulu,, S/o Balaiah,Aged. Not known R/o tl No 1 2-g_66/1 KharuaurViilage. Kukatpatty R:n.biitri"i' - ' l_larrsh flao,, S/o. Not Known, Aggd..32 years, Occ Not Known. R/o Krrshna licsrdenLy .Punjab National Ban"k. Bldg.'Mrnorif,^ f.tIgar Colo,,y ,\\rlathpet tVlarn Road. Bowenpally, SdcunJi.uiJ" '" ...RESPONDENTSiRESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT 1 TO 4

l)ctrtron un<ier section r 51 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated r, tlre :rlfrdavrt frred in support of the petition, inJHigr-, courl may t;e preased to Stay of , all f rrrther proceedings in os iro. qli ot zoi) peno,ng on thc frre of [)e Addrtro'al Distrrct and Sessions Judge Medchat-wJtk";g,..i o,rtr,.r oi"r<,,r.oiplrry pendrnq the drsposal of the CRp ruo of 2OZ6 Counscl for the petitioner(s): M/S DURGA BHAVANI KONDASANT Lounset [or the Respondent No.1:. BHAVANI SANKAR N Courrscl for thc Respondent No.2 TO S: NONE

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated- 1811212025 passed in lA No. 661 of 2O24 in OS No. 473t2b22 on the fite of lll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchal-fi/alkalgiri District at Kukatpally Between: Smt. .Chalasani S_andhya, Wo Chalasani Sudhrr Babu, aged about 62 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H. No. 2-2.29t21, Ftat No. 301. D.D. 6otony, KrishnS Teia Kingdom, Hyderabad. AND ,..PET|T|oNER/PET|T|ONER/PROPOSED DEFENDANT , 1. Sri D. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Raj Reddy,/ Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business. Rio 1st Floor, Plot No.1'1 15, Road No 54. Jubrtee Hiits, Hyderabad

2. lntivenka Lakshmaiah, S/o Yefliah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Not Known, R/o H.No.12-8€9 Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpatty, R R. Drstrict.

3. lntivenka Yadaiah, S/o Balarah, Aged about 55 years. tl/o H.No 12-B-66t1, Khaitlaur Village, Kukatpally, R,R. District

4. lntivenka Ramulu, S/o Balaiah, Aged. Not known. R/o H No 12-8-66/1 , KhaitlaurVillage, Kukatpally, R.R. District.

5. Harish Rao, S/o. Not Known, Aged. 32 years, Occ. Not Known, R/o. Krishna Residency, Punjab National Bank, Bldg, Nrlanovrkas Nagar. Cotony, Asmathpet Main Road, Bowenpally, Secundrabad.

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2026 lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Sectaon 151 CPC praying that r) the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the t{rgh Court nray be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in O S No 473 of 2O2? pendrng on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge [Iedchal lrrlalkalgrrr Drstrict, at Kukatpally pending the disposal of the CRP No. of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S DURGA BHAVANI KONDASANT Counsel for the Respondent No.1: BHAVANI SANKAR N

The Court made the following: COMMON OROER

IN THE HIGH COI]RT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISTON PETTTION Nos.293, 29t.300. 305 and 308 of2026 DATE OF COMMON ORDER: 06.02'2026 tn C.R.P.No.293 of 2026 Between: Vishnuvardhan Raju Penumetsa ..Petitioner AND D.Chandrasekhar Reddy and four others. ..Respondents This Court made the following: COMMO N ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners'

2. These Civit Revision Petitions are trled under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia challenging the orders dated 18'12'2025 passed in I.A.Nos.657, 658, 659, 660 and 66I of 2014 in O.S.No.473 of 2022 on the file ol the learned IIt Additionat District and Sessions Judge, Medchat Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. Respondent No.t/plaintiff has filed a suir in O.S.No.473 of 2021 (old O.S.No.590 of 2014) against respondenr Nos.2 to 5/de lendants seeking pcrmanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.f to 5. thcir agents, servants, workers, whosoever they may be clainring through thcm lrom interfering with the peaceful possession ancl enjoyrnent of respondent No.l/plaintiff over the suit schcdule property i.c., land admeasuring Acs.26.00 guntas in Sy No. 1007/AA, situared ar Khaitlapur Village. KukatpaUy Rer cnue Division, Ilalanagar Mandal, Rangareddy Distr.ict.

4. After corlrpletiorr of trial, leamed trial Court posted the said suit lirr -iudg.renr. Ar rhat stage, the petitioners herein have Iiled the interlocuton applications yrde [.A.Nos .657,65g,659, 660 and 661 ol'2024 irr O.S.No.473 of 2022 under Order I Rule t0 read rvith Section l5l ol- ('ode of Civil procedure, l90g seeking to irnplcad thcnr as proposed defendant No.5 contending that rhey are the orvners and possessors of plot Nos.l39, 126, l24,l3g and I lj respectivelr. cach plot adrneasuring 444.44 square yards. in Sy.No.l007, siruated at Khaitlapur Village, Kukatpally Reven ue Division. Balarragar Mandal, Rangareddy District. petitiruers acquired Thc said rand in Sy.No. 1007 on the strensth o| r he

registered sale deeds executed by lWs.Bhagya Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited. They are in possession of the said property.

5. Respondent No.l/plaintiff along with one Sri Ravinder Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.l457 of 2009 on the file of the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar against Pitli Shivaiah and others for injunction' Later' it is renumbered as O.S.No'433 of 2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally. Thus, respondent No'l/plaintif[ has hled the aforesaid suits against different delendants and interfering with the possession of the petitioners over their respective plots under the guise of injunction' There is every possibility of respondent No.1/plaintiff interlering with the possession of the petitioners herein/plot owners under the guisc ol injunction to be granted by the leamed trial Court in the subject su it

6. Respondent No.l/ptaintiff filed counter opposing thc said application contending that the suit is for injunction simpliciter' 'l'heretbre, petitioners can't seek their impleadrnent in thc subject su it. On consideration of the said aspects, vide itttpugned orders dated 18. 12.2025, rhe learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid applications.

7. Admittedly. rhe petitioners are rhird parties to the said suit. The said suit is flled for injunction simpliciter by the respondent No. I/plainriff against respondenr Nos.2 to 5 restraining them lrom interfbring with thc possession of the respondent No,l/plaintiff over the suit schcdulc propefty. [t is not a suit for declaration of title. Therefbre. l)cririoner can'r seek their impleadment in the subiect su ir.

8. It is scttlcd liru, rhar the plaintilf is the domirtus /il,s to his own litigation. In a suir fbr injunction simpliciter, third party can,t seek intplerLdnlent. l-hc sante \t/as reiterated by the Apex Court in the casc ol' Nak l,ngineering Company private Limited v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah and othersr and relevant paragraphs are as lollorvs: ''3 9. Th is apart, the respondent Nos. I and 2 who have instiruted rhe suit are dominus litis and it is lbr llrcnt to choosc their. adversaries. If they do not arra) thc propc-r.and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at thcir ow.n risk. Flowever, they cannot be compeilcd to arid a party ro delend a suit against their I 1026 I rvcl-a\\ I S( ) 5

wishes. The decree, if any, passed in the suit would be binding only between the parties to the suit and would not inlringe upon any right of a third party, much less of the appellant that is not a party to the suit.

40. This conclusion is reinforced by the fundamental principle laid down in Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, wherein this Court has observed: "l1.4. ...the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the def-endant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary pafty to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. [n other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the coplaintiff or defendant in the suit. lt is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. I 1.5. ... a necessary party is one without whorn, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an ef'Fective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding."

41. In lhe above lacts and circumstances, if the I{igh Court, for one reason or the other, has set aside the order of intpleadment nassed by the cor-rrt of first instance, we do not consider it to be illegal so as to set it asidc and resrore the order of the Trial Court.,'

9. As disctrssed supro, at the cost of repetition, the suit is not for declaration of title. it is only fbr injunction simpliciter. Therefore, it is lbr rcspondcnt No. I /ptaintilf being the dominus litis to decide or chosc thc def'cndants against him in a suit for injunction. A third pan_\, can't seek irnpleadment as one of the defendant in a suit fbr injunction. On consideration of the said aspects, more particularly,, Ordcr I Rule l0 of C.p.C., the principle laid down by the Apcx ('ourt in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited r,. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited2 and this Court in rhe case of B.Adeppa Naidu v. Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt and 3 others, vide order dated 09. I | .2018 in C.lt.P.No.4 l7l of 20 16, learned trial Court dismissed the afbresaid applications.

10. In the tight of'the albresaid discussion. the impugned orders are reasoncd ordcrs and n,e-ll fbunded. petitioners herein have , (2r,t0,I S(( ll.

To, faited to make out any case to interfere with the impugned orders' Therefore, these Civit Revision Petitions are liable to bc dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed Misccllaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. I'hcre shall be no order as to costs. SD/. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchal-lvlalkaigiri District at KukatPallY 2 one cc to lril/s DURGA BHAVANI'KONDASANI Advocate [oPUC] 3 One CC to tu1/S BHAVANI SANKAR N Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies VI\,4/PSL \q.

I i j I

HIGH COURT DATED: OGl02l2O26

ORDER

CRP.No.293, 298, 300, 305 AND 308 of 2026 DISMISSING THE CIVIL I?EVISION PETITION WITH OUI COSTS G roa1eA u, 546il6 a O / *