APHC010622912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3249 OF 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK AZIMA BEE, W/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK BABU SAHEB,, S/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK AMEER BASHA,, S/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,, S/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. SHAIK SHAHI BABA, , S/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. SHAIK KAREEMULA,, S/O. LATE S. HYDERVALLI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT PILER ROAD, KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SHAIK AAYASHA, W/O. ANSER BASHA, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 2. SHAIK HASMATH, W/O. S. ANWAR BASHA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3. S RAFI, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL HAMKEEM SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE AND POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. R SUNITHA, W/O. RAHCAPALI DHINAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MUNIREDDIGARIPALLI VILLAGE, H/O. DEVALAMPETA, C.V.PALLI POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present revision petition is filed against an order dated 26.08.2025 in I.A.No.64 of 2024 in A.S.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2) The respondent herein filed O.S.No.18 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Pakala, against the petitioners herein for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 30.12.2022. Against the judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal in A.S.No.18 of 2023. During the pendency of the appeal, they filed I.A.No.64 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein as parties to the appeal. The said application was resisted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the same vide orders dated 26.08.2025. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the learned Appellate Court went wrong in dismissing the I.A. in question without considering the matter in the proper perspective. He submits that during the pendency of the above referred appeal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 alienated the plaint / appeal schedule property in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 / proposed respondents and as such, they are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the Appeal Suit, more particularly, as it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He further submits that the learned appellate court was not justified in applying the 4 principle of lis pendens and further opining that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs are dominus litis and the proposed respondents cannot be impleaded against the wish of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs. Making the said submissions and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. J.N. Real Estate Vs Shailendra Pradhan 1 the learned counsel seeks to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 made submissions to sustain order of the learned Trial Court. He submits that as rightly held by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and the application filed by the petitioners seeking to implead some third parties on the premise that they are the subsequent purchasers was rightly rejected. He submits that the only intention of the petitioners is to protract the litigation and deprive the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / plaintiffs the fruits of the decree. He submits that there are no merits in the revision petition and urges for dismissal of the same. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others2. 5) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced on both sides, the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the order of 1 LAWS (SC)-2025-4-191 2 (2022) 17 SCC 286 5 the learned Trial Court warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 6) In the present case, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same was decreed in their favour on 30.12.2022. After obtaining the said decree, it is the allegation of the petitioners herein that some documents dated 20.02.2023 were fraudulently executed in respect of the plaint schedule property and thereafter a rectification deed dated 01.09.2023 was created and on the basis of the same, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are attempting to make permanent constructions and therefore they are sought to be impleaded as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the appeal. The said allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question were refuted by the respondent No.1 herein by filing a detailed counter. The said counter was adopted by the 2nd respondent and proposed respondent Nos.3 and 4. Be that as it may. 7) As to whether the said document is fraudulent or otherwise is not an issue that can be gone into by the appellate Court. Suffice to state that as rightly opined by the learned District Judge, if some transactions have taken place during the pendency of the appeal, the Doctrine of lis pendens would apply and the parties who entered into the said transactions with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 will also be bound by the orders that may be passed by the Appellate Court. That apart, the learned Trial Court in the order under Revision relied upon the decision of 6 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhamayee Pattnaik case referred to above, wherein the facts are similar to the case on hand. The appellants / plaintiffs before the Hon’ble Supreme Court instituted a civil suit against the defendants for declaration; permanent injunction and recovery of possession. In the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants on the premise that during the pendency of the lis, plaintiffs illegally or unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land. The said application was opposed by the appellants / plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants have no locus standi to file such application and that the plaintiffs are dominus litis and nobody can be permitted to join against the wish of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court allowed the said application, against which the plaintiffs carried the matter to the High Court and as the order of the Trial Court was confirmed, they carried the matter to the Apex Court. While setting aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court and allowing the appeal, at para No.9 the Apex Court held as follows: “9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as the defendants against the wish of the 7 plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs.” 8) While there is no dispute with regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.N.Real Estate case, at best all the proposed respondents herein can be treated as only proper parties, but not necessary parties whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the Appeal Suit. As noted earlier, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhamayee Pattnaik case is applicable to the present fact situation. This Court, on considering the matter in its entirety see no illegality or perversity in the order under revision. Point is accordingly answered against the petitioners. 9) In aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:31.01.2026 Ssv 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3249 OF 2025 Date:31.01.2026 Ssv