1 APHC010100342021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 304/2021 Between: 1. PRAHARAJU VEERA VENKATA DURAGA BHASKAR,, S/O SRI P. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 305, SOBH BUILDING, BANK STREET, HUMMRIVA-2, BUR DUBAI, UAE REP BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER SMT. TEKUMALLA VENKATA NAGA MALLIKA, W/O. SHRI TEKUMALLA RAVI SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 50-116- 8, SEETHAMMADHARA, NORTH EXTENSION, VISAKAHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DR. G. C. KISHORE KUMAR, S/O BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 8TH FLOOR, UDJOGABHAVAN, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. YAGALLA PATTABHIRAMI NAIDU, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. 8TH FLOOR, UDJOGABHAVAN, SIRIPURAM , VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. APARANGI PATTABHIRAMI NAIDU, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED 58 YEARS, ESTATE OFFICER (RETD), VUDA, R/O. D.NO.1-98-11, LIG- 172, SECTOR - V, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. KUPPILI KARUNA KUMAR, S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.50-99-7, SEETHAMMADARA, NORTH EXTENSION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2 5. VASTAVI CHIRANJEEVI RAJU, S/O. NARAYANA RAJU, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-48-4, SECTOR - I, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. PULLA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. P. RAMASWAMY, AGED 56 YEAR, SENIOR ASST. VUDA, R/O. D.NO.2-18-13, LIG-101, SECTOR VI, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 17. 7. DARRU PUNNAYYAM, S/O. LATE RAMAPPADU, AGED 61 YEARS, RETD. ASST. DRAFTS MAN, VUDA, R/O. D.NO.9-2-21/2, MIG-202, PITHAPURAM COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. V N VISHNU, S/O. LATE SUBBARAMIYYA, AGED 57 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, TELANGAN STATE. 9. SMT USRUMARTI PREETI RAO, , S/O. DONDAPARTI RAJA SEKHAR, AGED 34 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O. D.NO.81-19-1, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, PRAKASH NAGAR - 2, RAJAHMUNDRY, REP. BY USRUMARTI PRABHU CHARAN, S/O. U. RAMA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.81-19-1, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, PRAKASH NAGAR - 2, RAJAHMUNDRY. 10. SMT M DURGASHREE, W/O. M. VASUDEVA PATRO, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.209, S.S. GARDENS, SECTOR - 2, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 11. MAMIDANNA RAJEEV, S/O. M. VASUDEVARAO PATRO, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.209, S.S. GARDENS, SECTOR - 2, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 12. NEELA KISHORECHAND, S/O. LATE JAYARAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. 2-16-27/26, PLOT NO.56, FLAT NO.AF1, VR PRESIDENCY, MVP COLONY, OPP. DRDA OFFICE, SECTOR - 6, VISAKHAPATNAM. 13. ARYASOMAYAJULA SIRESH, , S/O. A. SRIHARI, AGED 36 YEARS, RIO. KUNDERU TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, RAMACHANDRARAOPETA, ELURU, W.G. DISTRICT. 14. ANTHONY PANAKAL VARGHESE, S/O. LATE P.1. VARGHESE, AGED 4LYEARS, R/O. D.NO.23-30-3, PANAKAL HOUSE, NEAR SACRED HEART CHURCH, SOLIDERPET, VISAKHAPATNAM - 1. 3 15. SMT BIJI XAVIER, , W/O. ANTHONY PANAKAL VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.23-30-3, PANAKAL HOUSE, NEAR SACRED HEART CHURCH, SOLIDERPET, VISAKHAPATNAM - 16. SMT VEMULAPALLI AMMANNA, W/O. KRISHNA RAO, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-67-12, MIG-1, SECTOR - 2, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 30.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.827 of 2018 in O.S.No.792 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.792 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be please to extending the interim order dt.31.03.2024 made in C.R.P.No.305 of 2021 pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Extend the interim Orders in were initially granted on 31.03.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2021 in CRP.No.304 of 2021 and further extended the order until further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Somisetty Ganesh Babu SC For VUDA and MUDA The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 304 of 2021 O R D E R: 1. Instant Civil Revision Petition (For Short C.R.P) has been preferred against an order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam I.A.No.827 of 2018 in O.S.No.792 of 2014. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that:- originally, the suit was filed before learned court i.e., VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam by the Plaintiff being the Respondent No.1 herein against the Defendants being Respondents No.2 to 16 for cancellation of a sale deed dated 30.11.2009 registered as document No.4864 of 2009 in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C) before the learned court below for adding him as a party to the suit on the ground that he subsequently purchased the suit property in question from Defendants (Respondents No.2 to 16). The learned Court below has heard the Petitioner and turndown his prayer under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., on the ground that Petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit proceedings. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is illegal and pervasive. He further submits that the learned VI Additional District 5 Judge, Visakhapatnam has failed to appreciate the facts and nature and circumstances of the suit. Thus there is miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the present Petitioner is a necessary party to the suit, without whom the entire suit cannot be heard effectively. On that reason, he prayed to rejection of the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff submits that there are no errors apparent in the Order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Moreover, the learned Trial court has opined proper reason for rejection of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.,. Instant C.R.P., has no merits. 5. Heard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. Perused, the entire impugned order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatna. It appears that in a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed the Petitioner approached the Court for adding him as a party on the ground that he is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property. Learned court below opined that the Petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit. 7. In a suit for cancellation of a registered deed, the parties to the deed are necessary parties, whether the deed was executed properly or whether the deed was executed to the proper instructions of the executants or the consideration amount was passed in the Deed etc., are the issues involved before the Court to decide the suit. The petitioner admittedly is not a 6 party to the deed itself. Accordingly, the petitioner, if be made a party had have no plea to participate in the proceeding. Furthermore, the Petitioner may have acquired his title over the suit property subsequently, but the suit property in question is not actually subject matter of the suit. Moreover <decree in personam= is not binding upon a person who is not a party to the suit. Thus, I find nothing illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 8. However, if the Petitioner feels his right over the property has clouded, he may file a separate suit to clear of cloud of his title over the property. 9. Under the above submission, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, instant Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:01.12.2025. KS1/SSA 7 213 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 304/2021 DATED:01.12.2025. W KS1/SSA