Smt K.Hemalatha And 2 Others vs Maram Reddy Kondamma And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4130 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2912 OF 2013

                               ORDER

This revision is directed against the order dated 19.06.2013

passed in I.A.No.757 of 2013 in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of

the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, impleading

Maram Reddy Kondamma as the fourth defendant in the main

suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not maintainable as

it is applicable only to the pending proceedings. In the case on

hand, the suit was already decreed way back on 24.04.2013, and

as such the question of impleading the first respondent herein

does not arise. To support his contention, he relied upon a decision

reported in MIR SARDAR ALI KHAN V/s. SPECIAL DEPUTY

COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (INDUSTRIES), HYDERABAD1

holding to the effect that 'the use of the words "at any stage of the

proceedings" in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 in Order 1 shows that the

power can be exercised only when the proceedings are alive and

still pending. Hence, once the adjudication itself of all the disputes

in the case is over, this provision cannot be made use of by any

party.'

In the impugned order the Court below observed that the

main suit was decreed on 24.04.2013 and that the proposed party

also filed a petition vide I.A.No.756 of 2013 in the suit to set aside

the ex parte decree dated 24.04.2013 and the counsel for the

AIR 1973 AP 298

petitioners herein had endorsed on the said application stating

that they have no objection and after considering the same the said

application was allowed and the judgment dated 24.04.2013 is set

aside on the same day and as such the contention of the

petitioners herein cannot be accepted.

Perusal of the record would show that O.S.No.239 of 2012

was decreed on 24.04.2013 and the first respondent herein filed

this application to implead her on 07.05.2013, which is patently

after passing of the decree. As per the law laid down in MIR

SARDAR ALI KHAN (supra) the implead application filed by the

first respondent herein itself is not maintainable, and therefore,

the Court below erred in arriving to the conclusion to allow the

same on the ground that the petitioners herein are not disputing

the fact that she is not the legal heir of Late Venkat Reddy. No

doubt she is the mother of the deceased, but she intended to come

on record only after the disposal of the suit, which is not

sustainable in law.

Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the

order dated 19.06.2013 passed in I.A.No.757 of 2013 in

O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy, is set aside.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

the light of this final order.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J 3RD DECEMBER, 2021

PGS