ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in Original Suit No. A4/CPC/138/2018, dated 01.04.2021 in holding that the respondent No. 7 is the legally married wife of the deceased Kagne Santhosh and she is his legal heir and further holding that she is eligible for claiming the death benefits of the deceased, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and without conducting the trial or enquiry as per the provisions of C.P.C., without considering the provisions of Agency Rules and without having jurisdiction and set aside the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in O.S.No. A4/CPC/138/ 2018, dated 01.04.2021 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules.

2. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.5 & 6, and Sri G. Chandra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of Kagne Santhosh, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are his brothers. He further submits that respondent No. 7 forcibly married Kagne Santhosh on 06.05.2013 and due to her harassment, their son has taken divorce on 05.06.2013 from her in the presence of caste elders and they returned the household articles and other amounts and also paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards her permanent alimony, and he died on 12.06.2013 due to electrocution.

3.1 He further submits that respondent No. 7 filed a suit O.S. No. 6 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Boath, seeking declaration to declare her as the wife and Class-I legal heir of her deceased husband. In the said suit the petitioners filed written statement contending that respondent No. 7 is not entitled to the relief sought, on the ground that she has already taken divorce from her husband. The said suit was transferred to the Court of respondent No. 2.

3.2 He also contended that as per the provisions of Rule 7 of “Telangana State Agency Rules, 1924” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity) the respondent No. 2 is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the value of the suit is below Rs.5,000/- but the respondent No. 2 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners, without giving opportunity, and without following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’) passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the law and liable to be set aside.

3.3. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Babu Lal and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 435.

4. Per contra, Sri G. Chandra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7, vehemently contended that the respondent No. 7 filed a suit O.S. No. 6 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Boath, seeking declaration declaring her as legally wedded wife and Class-I legal heir of her deceased husband Kagne Santhosh and the same was transferred to the Court of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the ‘Rules’ & ‘C.P.C’ passed the impugned order and there is no illegality, irregularity or error to interfere with the said order. He further submits that as per the provisions of the Rule 49 of the ‘Rules’ against the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners ought to have filed Appeal and the writ petition filed by them invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.1. He further submits that the allegations made by the petitioners that