In the recent past, the prices of land in and around the city of Hyderabad have increased in geometrical proportions. The unprecedented growth has naturally brought along with it, litigation of peculiar nature, divorced from settled principles of law. This tendency is more acute in various Courts in Ranga Reddy District. The case on hand presents an illustration.

2. The petitioners filed O.S.No.150 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Ranga Reddy District, with a prayer to declare that, they are the surviving legal heirs of late, V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya, @ Ponia Lambada. No one was impleaded as defendant, and it was filed against 'all concerned'. The suit was decreed on 17-03-2008.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed I.A.No.222 of 2008 with a prayer to implead them as defendants in the suit. I.A.No.223 of 2008 was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17-03-2008. Since there was delay in filing that application, they filed I.A.No.186 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a prayer to condone the delay of 61 days. The petitioners opposed these applications. Through common order dated 12-08-2008, the trial Court allowed the applications. These two revisions are filed against the orders in I.A.Nos.222 and 223 of 2008, respectively.

4. Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in case the respondents have rights, vis-a-vis any property, they have to work out the remedies by filing suits, or instituting proceedings. He contends that the trial Court was not at all justified in impleading the respondents 1 and 2, or setting aside the ex parte decree.

5. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have grossly misused the process of Court in filing the suit and obtaining an ex parte decree. He contends that though an innocuous prayer was made for declaration, that they are the legal heirs of one, Mr. Rasiya, the petitioners started pressing that decree into service, before the various authorities under the A. P.

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short 'the Act;)

6. The prayer made by the respondents (sic. petitioners) in their suit is for,

(i) "Declaring the plaintiffs that they are the sole and surviving legal heirs of Late Sri V. Rashya Naik, alias Rasiya, s/o. Puriya @ Poniya Lambada;

(ii) granting costs of the suit; and

(iii) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice".

7. From this, it becomes clear that they prayed for a mere declaratory relief. It is relevant to mention that, neither any schedule was attached to the plaint, nor any individual was cited as defendant. It was not a petition under the Indian Succession Act. It is just unundestrandable as to how the trial court numbered the suit, though no defendants were shown in it. In para 5 of the plaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the necessity for them to file the suit has arisen on account of the fact that their claim was not being accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevalla, in respect of the lands held by Rasiya. It was also mentioned that Rasiya left an estate. In this background the petitioners were under obligation to mention the particulars of the estate, as regards which, the succession was claimed, and to implead the individuals or officials, who disputed their right to succeed to the estate of late Rasiya. On both the counts, the plaint was silent.

8. The suit was notionally valued at Rs.3,000/-, and the trial Court has generously accepted that, without any further verification. Assuming that the suit was not defective, either as regards the mentioning the property, or as to the presence of the parties against whom the relief is claimed, a serious legal infirmity was glaring on the face of it. The petitioners did not claim any relief ancillar