APHC010312982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. SHAIK KHASIM, S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, DOOR NO VARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001. 2. .SHAIK.NAZIMUDDIN, , S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC UN GUNTURVARITBOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001., REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SBAIK KBASIM 1. SHAIK RAHAMTULLAH, S/O.TAJUDDIN SABEB, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O-D.NO. 66-8-391, MUFTI S CHILDRENS MEMORIAL PARK, ASIAN HYDRA CRANE SPARE PARTS. FIRST FLOOR, PONNURROAD,GUNTUR 2. SHAIK ABDULALEEM, S/O.ABDULAZEEM SABEB, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 13 GUNTURVARI TBOTA, GUNTUR, 3. SYED AYESBA, W/O.SYED.MAQBOOL HUSSAIN, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, D.NO. 15 NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, GUNTUR. 4. SHAIK ASMA FARJANA, W/O.SHAIK.ILIYAS GAJINI, AGED 30 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1715/2025 SHAIK KHASIM, S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, DOOR NO-13-4-38, 4TH LINE, GUNTM VARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001. .SHAIK.NAZIMUDDIN, , S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 UN-EMPLOYEE, DOOR.NO-13-4-38, 4TH LINE, GUNTURVARITBOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001., REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SBAIK KBASIM ...PETITIONER(S) AND SHAIK RAHAMTULLAH, S/O.TAJUDDIN SABEB, AGED 49 YEARS, 391, MUFTI STREET, OPP.TO LAL JAN BASBA CHILDRENS MEMORIAL PARK, ASIAN HYDRA CRANE SPARE PARTS. FIRST FLOOR, PONNURROAD,GUNTUR-522003. SHAIK ABDULALEEM, S/O.ABDULAZEEM SABEB, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 13-4-38, 4TH LINE, GUNTURVARI TBOTA, GUNTUR, PIN. 522001. SYED AYESBA, W/O.SYED.MAQBOOL HUSSAIN, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, D.NO. 15-13-118A, 2ND LINE, GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, GUNTUR. SHAIK ASMA FARJANA, W/O.SHAIK.ILIYAS GAJINI, AGED 30 RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SHAIK KHASIM, S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC 38, 4TH LINE, GUNTM- VARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001. .SHAIK.NAZIMUDDIN, , S/O.SHAIK.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 36 38, 4TH LINE, GUNTURVARITBOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN. 522001., REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SBAIK KBASIM ...PETITIONER(S) SHAIK RAHAMTULLAH, S/O.TAJUDDIN SABEB, AGED 49 YEARS, TREET, OPP.TO LAL JAN BASBA CHILDRENS MEMORIAL PARK, ASIAN HYDRA CRANE SPARE 522003. SHAIK ABDULALEEM, S/O.ABDULAZEEM SABEB, AGED 60 38, 4TH LINE, SYED AYESBA, W/O.SYED.MAQBOOL HUSSAIN, AGED 38 118A, 2ND LINE, GANDHI SHAIK ASMA FARJANA, W/O.SHAIK.ILIYAS GAJINI, AGED 30 RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 2 YEARS,OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 3-29-150, RAMANUJAKUTAM, OPPJUTE MILL,KRISHNA NAGAR, PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN.522006. 5. SHAIK ASIYA SAMREEN, , D/O.ABDUL ALEEM, AGED 29 YEARS,OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 13-4-38, 4TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN. 522001. 6. MD USMAN SHAIK, S/O.LATE.MD.UMAR SHAIK, AGED 43 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 13-4-38, 4TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN 522001. 7. SHAIK ALI MURTHAZA, S/O.LATE.MD.UMAR SHAIK, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 13-4-32, 4TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN. 52200L 8. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.LATE.ABDUL AZEEM SAHEB, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 52-5-476, 4TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN. 522001. 9. SHAIK SABIRUNNISA, W/O.LATE.SHAIK SAMIVULLA SAHEB, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O.D.NO. 13-7-83, 6TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN 522001. 10. SHAIK JAKEERUNNISA, , W/O.GOUSE BASHA, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O.D.NO. 13-7-84, 6TH LINE, GUNTURIVARITHOTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN 522001. 11. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, MANGALAGIRI BRANCH, D.NO. 1-1-201, GOWTHAMA BUDHA ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-PIN. 522503. RESPONDENTS ...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 tobegs to present the present Civil Revision Petition against the Order and Decree in I.A.NO. 1626 of 2023 in O. S. No. 102 of 2020 Dated 25.03.2025 on the file of the Honble Second Additional District Court, Guntur, Guntur District, RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 3 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 pleased to stay all farther proceedings in Hence, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings in O. S. No. 102 of 2020 on the file of the Hon’ble Second Additional District Court, Guntur, Guntur District, pending disposal of the C.R.P, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI The Court made the following: RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 4 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1626 of 2023 in O.S.No.102 of 2020 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. The petitioners are the petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 10 are the respondents/defendant nos. 1 to 10 and respondent no.11 is the respondent no.11/proposed defendant in I.A.No.1626 of 2023 in O.S.No.102 of 2020. 3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that: (i) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.102 of 2020 for partition of the plaint schedule property, for cancellation of sale deed dated 05.02.2003 executed by their paternal grandfather in favour of defendant no.1 and for mesne profits. In the said suit they filed the petition vide I.A.No.1626 of 2023 under Order-1, Rule-10 r/w. Order-6, Rule-17 of Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mangalagiri as 11th defendant in the suit, contending that respondent no.1 without any right and title over the property obtained loan from Indian Bank by mortgaging the plaint schedule property under the guise of forged sale deed dated 05.02.2003 and therefore, the Mortgage is RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 5 not binding on the plaintiffs and now they are under the apprehension that defendant no.1 in collusion with the bank may bring the property covered under the sale deed to auction to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs and hence the bank has to be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit. (ii) The defendant no.1 filed counter and resisted the petition contending that he is the absolute owner of the property and the suit itself is not maintainable so also this petition to implead the bank as one of the defendants to the suit, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is further stated in the counter that no documentary proof is filed to support their version by the plaintiffs except leveling bald allegations. (iii) The trial Court upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition holding that there is no cause of action against the proposed party and it is neither necessary nor proper party to adjudicate the controversy involved in the suit and the bank is sought to be impleaded as party only on mere apprehension, which is not valid under law. (iv) The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri J.V.Siva Sai, learned counsel for Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for respondent no.1. RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 6 5. Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition would contend that based on the forged and invalid sale deed the defendant no.1 created mortgage over the plaint schedule property from respondent no.11 bank and the defendant no.1 in collusion with the bank may bring the property to sale with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs and therefore, the bank is a necessary and proper party to the suit. He would further contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction over property ownership disputes even during Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) proceedings. He would further contend that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that no reason was mentioned for inclusion of the proposed defendant as a party though it has duly been explained in the petition that the proposed defendant is a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. He would further contend that the trial Court upon misinterpretation of Order-1, Rule-10 CPC, which empowers the court to bring on record proper parties, erroneously dismissed the petition, though the presence of proposed defendant would facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit and prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 7 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain1. 6. On the other hand, Sri J.V.Siva Sai, learned counsel for respondent no.1, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial Court would contend that the petition lacks merits and bona fides but based on imaginary apprehensions and the same is filed only to harass respondent no.1 by making bald allegations without any supporting material. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of the facts of the case had rightly reached the conclusion that there is no cause of action for the petitioners to add the bank as a party to the suit and the said order does not deserve any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The plaintiffs sought to implead the bank as a party defendant in a suit filed by them for partition and for cancellation of the sale deed said to have been executed by their paternal grandfather in favour of defendant no.1. It shows that the defendant no.1 mortgaged the subject matter of the sale 1.(2025) 4 SCC 38 RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 8 deed to the bank. The ground urged by them for inclusion is that the defendant no.1 in collusion with the bank may try to bring the property to auction and hence the bank is a proper and necessary party to the suit. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application filed for inclusion of the bank on the ground that the petitioners want to implead the bank on the apprehension that the bank may auction the property, which is not a valid reason for impleadment of a party to the suit and further the bank is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (supra) held that civil courts retain jurisdiction over property ownership disputes even during Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) proceedings. The contention of the petitioners is that the defendant no.1 in collusion with the bank may bring the property to auction by defaulting payment of mortgage debt brought by him. Since the right and title of defendant no.1 over the property mortgaged to the bank is questioned and that the document which was mortgaged to the bank also was sought to be cancelled in the suit, the bank is a proper party for effective adjudication of the lis involved in the suit and further the same may mitigate multiplicity of proceedings, however, the trial Court failed to take the same into consideration. RC,J CRP No.1715 of 2025 9 10. The learned trial Judge upon improper analysation of the facts of the case erroneously dismissed the petition filed for inclusion of the bank to the suit. The said order needs interference of this Court. 11. In the above view of the matter, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is liable to the set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1626 of 2023 in O.S.No.102 of 2020 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur. Consequently, I.A.No.1626 of 2023 in O.S.No.102 of 2020 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 13TH MARCH, 2026. RR