M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

1. The 5th defendant in the suit-OS. No. 746 of 2012 filed these revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common orders dated 16.10.2015 of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, passed in IA. Nos. 1690 and 1691 of 2015 in the aforementioned suit.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/5th defendant and Sri N. Subbarao, learned counsel for the respondents 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 i.e., the defendants 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. The respondents 4 and 6 i.e., the defendants 3 and 6 are stated to be not necessary parties. The 1st respondent/plaintiff though served with notice did not appear and there is no representation for him.

2.1 The parties in this revision shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner/5th defendant, plaintiff/1st respondent and the contesting respondents/defendants.

3. I have perused the material record.

4. The facts necessary to be stated as a preface to this order, in brief, are as follows:

"The plaintiff/1st respondent brought the suit against the defendants, who are his brothers and sisters, for partition of the plaint schedule properties, inter alia, stating that their mother had died and that on the death of the father, Khayam Hussain, the immovable properties acquired by him became 'Matruka Properties' and are hence, liable for partition as per Muslim Shariat applicable to the parties. The 5th defendant is resisting the suit by filing a written statement. Some of the other defendants were also resisting the suit. While the suit is pending, the plaintiff personally filed a memo dated 23.04.2015 before the trial Court stating to the effect that the subject matter of the suit was settled outside the Court and as such the plaintiff does not wish to continue the suit against the defendants and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed as not pressed. The counsel for the plaintiff also signed the said memo. The plaintiff filed the said memo before the trial Court along with a petition to advance the suit. The trial Court advanced the suit from 13.08.2015 to 24.04.2015 and dismissed the suit on that day, as not pressed, after taking into consideration the contents of the said memo. Aggrieved thereof, the 5th defendant filed two applications viz., IA. Nos. 1690 and 1691 of 2015 requesting to restore the suit by setting aside the order dated 24.04.2015 passed in the suit and to permit her to transpose as 2nd plaintiff in the above suit and prosecute the suit. Even without inviting counters, if any, from the plaintiff and other defendants, the trial Court dismissed both the petitions by the common order which is impugned in these revisions. Hence the 5th defendant is before this Court."

5. The case and submissions of the 5th defendant, in brief, are as follows:

"The plaintiff's suit for partition, which is being resisted by this defendant by filing a written statement, was dismissed by the trial Court as not pressed after taking into consideration the contents of the memo filed by the plaintiff requesting to dismiss the suit as not pressed on the alleged ground that the subject matter of the suit is settled out of Court. When a notice was served on the counsel for the 5th defendant on the said memo for withdrawal of the suit, her learned counsel made an endorsement 'received copy subject to filing objection and transpose petition on behalf of defendant No. 5'. Similarly, in the application filed for advancing the suit, which is filed along with the memo, the counsel for the 5th defendant endorsed 'received copy subject to filing counter and intimation of date of hearing'. The plaintiff as well as the other defendants failed to bring to the notice of the Court the said facts and the plaintiff had hurriedly withdrawn the suit depriving this defendant's rights. The plaintiff did so in collusion with the other defendants. The order permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit is not in