IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3198 of 2014 BETWEEN Chillara Venkateswara Rao.
... PETITIONER AND Inabathina Yedukondalu and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. RAMACHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.8, who is defendant No.6 in O.S.No.166 of 2002. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and though respondents 1 to 19 and 29 are served nobody appears for them. The other respondents in this revision are only defendants in the suit and though they are not served, the lis in this revision is only between the plaintiff and the contesting defendants.
2. Since the plaintiffs are served and contesting defendant, respondent No.8 herein, is represented by counsel, I have heard this revision itself in order to ensure that the pendency of the partition suit from 2002 is not delayed further.
3. Petitioner, who claims to be a subsequent purchaser from defendant No.23, filed an application, being I.A.No.487 of 2014, seeking his impleadment and the said application was opposed by respondent No.8 hearing and on consideration of the said application, the Court below under the impugned order dated 24.07.2014 dismissed the said application on the ground that the suit is being adjourned for the last 14 years and though the vendor i.e. defendant No.23 of the petitioner is contesting the suit, the sale in favour of the petitioner four years back is only a further attempt to delay the disposal of the suit. The Court below also held that since the petitioner’s vendor is already contesting the suit, it is not necessary to implead the petitioner. Against the said order, the present revision is filed.
4. Petitioner, being pendente lite purchaser, is not in dispute. Moreover, the learned counsel for respondent No.8, fairly states that since the petitioner’s role is only with respect to working our equities in his favour, on establishing that he is a bonafide purchaser, then the implead application may be ordered. However, in view of the suit being at the stage of arguments, the hearing must not be further delayed.
The civil revision petition is, therefore, allowed and petitioner will stand impleaded as a defendant in the suit. However, since the petitioner has only to plead about his purchase being bonafide and seek equities in his favour, as a subsequent purchaser, he is granted two (2) weeks time from today to file his written statement and thereafter, the Court below shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. It is made clear that if no written statement is filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated above, the Court below shall be at liberty to proceed further in the suit and dispose of the suit on merits. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 14, 2014 DSK