DEVAGIRI VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. S.K. SHABINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dtd. 10/3/2025 passed in I.A.No.870 of 2023 in O.S.No.122 of 2020 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petitioners are the proposed defendants, respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent nos.3 to 5 are the defendants in O.S.No.122 of 2020.

(3.) The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed the suit against respondent nos.3 to 5 for redemption of mutually agreed balance mortgage debt of Rs.55,00,000.00 due by 1st plaintiff/mortgagor to 1st defendant/mortgage and direct the 1st defendant to execute property reconveyance deeds covered under the nominal registered sale deed Nos.755/2012 and 756/2012 on the file of SRO, Guntur which are executed by 1st plaintiff as security for repayment of the said debt and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from and in any way interfering with the 1st plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant/mortgagee from alienating the plaint schedule property in favour of 3rd parties either by way of sale, lease, mortgage etc., pending disposal of the suit. In the said suit, the petitioners who are plaintiff nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 filed petition vide I.A.No.870 of 2023 under Order-1, Rule-10 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to come on record as defendant nos.4 to 6, contending that the suit vide O.S.No.62 of 2018 was filed claiming easementary right over item no.2 of the plaint schedule property in this suit and they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The respondent nos.1 and 2 resisted the claim made by the petitioners by filing counter contending that Dhanunjaya Reddy, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 purchased the property in Court auction without any passage rights, however falsely claiming easementary rights through item no.2 of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.122 of 2020, filed frivolous suits vide O.S.No.62 of 2018 and also O.S.No.120 of 2020 and the petitioners have never been in possession and enjoyment of the property purchased in Court auction and they being absolute third parties to the suit claim cannot be permitted to come on record. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, dismissed the petition and the said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.