Sunday, 12, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Padmaja P. Rao vs M. Laxman Died
2021 Latest Caselaw 998 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 998 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 March, 2021

Telangana High Court
Smt. Padmaja P. Rao vs M. Laxman Died on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram
     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                       C.R.P.No. 4154 of 2008

ORDER :

Petitioner in I.A.No. 1045 of 2007 filed under Order 1 Rule

10 C.P.C. seeking to add her as defendant No.11 in O.S. No. 35 of

1987 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Medhcal,

approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

The suit was filed originally to declare the gift settlement

deed dated 30.04.1983 registered as document No. 1836/1983

alleged to have been executed by Sri Mekala Dasarath in favour of

the 1st defendant in respect of Acs.6.10 guntas of land in survey

No. 7 of Raj Bollaram Village, Medchal Mandal, as null and void.

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sri Dasarath. The suit was

decreed on 29.12.1994. Challenging the said judgment and

decree, A.S.No. 29 of 1995 was filed before the II Additional District

Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar by the defendants. The Appeal

came to be allowed on 12.10.1998 remanding the suit to the

learned Junior Civil Judge with a direction to provide an

opportunity to both sides including the 4th respondent who was

added as a party in the Appeal to lead evidence afresh, if any by

framing all issues in respect of passing of the decree in O.S.No.

287 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner, who claims to have acquired

the property through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1995,

having come to know the proceedings, filed the present Application

to add her as party respondent. That I.A. was dismissed by the

learned Junior Civil Judge, mainly on the premise that the scope of

order in the Appeal being limited, the Court cannot go beyond the

said order. Hence, the present Revision.

This Revision was filed in 2008. It may be noted that even at

the time of filing the C.R.P., Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff No. 1 died,

and Respondents 2 and 3 were the original plaintiffs. Thereafter,

Respondents 4 and 5 died and their legal representatives were

already on record. Respondent No.13 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.

287 of 1988 which was referred to in A.S.No. 29 of 1995. The

record discloses that Respondents 2 and 3 were served, on behalf

of Respondent No.13, a counsel was appearing and on behalf of

Respondent 9, one Sri T.Natraj, Advocate filed vakalat.

Respondents 1, 4 and 5 died. Respondents 6 to 8 and 10 to 12

were served through paper publication which was filed vide USR

No. 11107 of 2020.

In view of the service as above, the Revision is taken up for

hearing and disposal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client

also stands on par with Respondent No.13 as she claimed to have

acquired the right over the suit schedule property on account the

sale deed dated 07.11.1995. Inasmuch as the suit was remanded

and the only contesting party being Respondent No.13 in the suit,

since the other defendants remained ex parte as they have no right

over the property, no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is

impleaded as the party respondent.

It may be noted that none of the respondents filed counter-

affidavit opposing the I.A. In the facts of the present case, there

being no objection for any of the parties in the suit proceedings,

and before this Court, neither the plaintiffs nor the respondents,

except Respondent No.13 appearing and considering that the

rights of the petitioner as well as Respondent No.13 are required to

be considered in the suit proceedings, the order in I.A.No. 1045 of

2007 is set aside. Considering the fact that the suit is of 1987,

subject to the petitioner filing the written statement within four

weeks, the learned Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of

the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

six months from the date of filing of the written statement.

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 26th March 2021

ksld

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Media

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter