American Baptist Foreign Mission Society v. American Baptist Foreign Mission Society Abfms
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3378 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY,THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3851 F 2025 Petilion under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in LA.No.52 ol 2025 in O.S. No. 118 of 2019, on the file of the court of the Xll Addl. Chief Judge City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Between:
AMERICAN BAPTIST FOREIGN MISSION SOCIETY, Regd. No.312 of 19 70, a Society Registered Under Societies Act HavllS ltl Off1c€ at Chennai, Rep by PulukJri Suiay, Fl/o H.No.24-9-109/2, Opp. Electrical . Substation, Kovur Road, Kandukur' .PSR Nellore District' 523105'
^::Illff,"diEHrproposed praintiff No.z AND AMERICAN BAPTIST FOREIGN MISSION SOCIETY ABFMS, Secunderabad Prooerties Represented by its Joint Power of Attorney Holders Sri PariugantiRupLis Kumar 5/6 Mallaiah Aged about 26 ye?!s, Oc-cupatron.- Privaia Service, Temporarily residing at H.No.1'1-!156/1, Red Hills Hvderabad. T.S-5oOoo4. And ?allerla Nlveen S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 28 yeiars, Occupation.- Private Service, Temporarily reskJing at H.No 11-5-156/1, Red Hills, Hyderabad-T.S,500 004.
... . Respondent No 1/Plaintiff 'l THE PROPERW ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST CHURCH, PVT. / LTD, Rep by its President Sri K.PrasadaRao Aged about 58 years, Occ. President of P.A.B. Church Pvt. Ltd, R/o ABM Compound, Kavali, Nellore District. A.P. ' .... Respondent No.2 /Defendant No.1
3. ACKLIN DUGLAS, S/O T.R.ACKI|N, H.No.9-1-'176, ABM Compound, 39 about 75 years, Occ.' Business. R/o Road. Secunderabad.
.... Respondent No.3/Defendant No.2 Aged , S.D.
KOMARAVELLI VENKATESHAM, S/oVeersham, Aged about 59 vears, occ. Business .... Respondent No.4/Defendant No.3 YELLU RAVINER REDDY, S/o.St'i. Bapu Reddy Aged about 52 years, Occu.- Business, R/o H.No.1-8-102/1, Chikkaitpally. Hydeiabad, and R/o Plot No 35, Soujanya Colony, New Bowenpally Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT No.s/Defendant No.4
lA NO:'f 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 118 of 2019, on the file of Xll Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. JASWANTH SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: ORDER
TIIE HOITOI'RABLE SRI JUSIICE P.SA,M KOSITY CryIL REIIIISION PETITIOIT I{O.385I OF 2025 ORDER:
1.
The instant petition is a Civil Revision Petition, which is flrled assailing the order dated 10.O3.2025 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short, 'the Trial Court'), in I.A.No.S2 of 2025 in O.S.No.l18 of 2019. 2.
Vid.e the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected I.A.No.52 of 2025 trled by the petitioner seeking impleadment as proposed plaintiff No. 2.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had erroneously rejected the petition without perusa-l of the material papers, documents and pleadings, which were brought before the Trial Court through the proposed plaintiff No.2. 4.
The petitioner claims himself to be appointed as a General Power of Attorney hold,er uide the GPA executed on 19.08.2023. Along with the impleadment petition, there was also an alternate prayer sought by the petitioner that if the Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as plaintiff No.2, alternatively, I I the original plaintiff, who has filed the suit, may be struck off and the petitioner may be substituted as the original plaintiff.
5.
The petitioner herein claims to be the absolute owner of tl.e suit schedule property and since the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property and at the same time asserts that plaintiff No.l is not a genuine person pursuing the suit, this Court do not lind any good reason for the petitioner not having got himself impleaded as respondent No.l opposing the plaintiff or for the petitioner not having thought of frling an independent fresh suit in respect of his claims if any, that he has against the defendants. Moreover, it a-lso appears that, before the Trial Court, the petitioner was not able to file the GpA dated l9.O8.2O23, in spite of having been directed to do so.
6.
In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop narrated in the preceding paragraph, this Court does not find any strong case made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the Ttial Court rejecting the impleadment petition dated lO.O3.2O2S in I.A.No.S2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1 t8 of 2019.
7.
The C.R.P. is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petirions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. A .S.GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OFFICER To, ty
1. The Xll Additional Chief Judge, Ci
2. One CC to SRI JASWANTH SIN
3. Two CD Copies GE/PSL ,{^8.u Civil Court at Secunderabad.
H THAKUR Advocate [OPUC]
r HIGH COURT DATED:2111112O25 c t
ORDER
,J /l 2 5 tiiR 2l]26 z CRP.No.3851 of 2025 P * * i :s__:gF,lI I ti OISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS (51 )h - ^.1", I