ORDER:

Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 11.05.2022 in I.A.No.276 of 2022 in O.S.No.109 of 2014 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiffs initially filed O.S.No.109 of 2014 against Sub- Registrar, Cheepurupalli and District Registrar, Vizianagaram i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to register sale deed by setting aside the order of refusal passed by defendant No.1.

4. In the plaint, it is contended inter alia that plaintiffs presented the document for registration, but defendant No.1 by proceedings No.3 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, refused to register the document; that against the said refusal order, plaintiffs filed statutory appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act before defendant No.2; that defendant No.2 without making any enquiry returned the appeal with endorsement No.353/2013/ G-1, dated 01.03.2013, as barred by time. Hence, suit was filed. 5. Defendants filed written statement and contended inter alia that without impleading District Collector as party defendant to the suit, suit is not maintainable.

6. Pending the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.276 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of CPC to add State represented by District Collector as defendant No.3 to the suit.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that plaintiffs are advised that District Collector should be added as defendant No.3 to the suit to avoid technical defects and to avoid further litigation; that District Collector being the Administrative Head of the District and of defendant Nos.1 and 2, he is proper and necessary party to the suit. Thus, filed the present application.

8. Respondents filed counter opposing the application and contended that inspite of mentioning in the written statement filed on 27.04.2015, no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to add District Collector as party defendant to the suit. In fact PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that District Collector was not added as party defendant to the suit and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. By order, dated 11.05.2022, the trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that non-impleadment of District Collector as party defendant to the suit is neither willful nor wanton. He would submit that to avoid technicalities, plaintiffs filed application to implead District Collector as party defendant to the suit. He would also submit that the main suit is filed seeking direction to defendant No.1 to register document, as such initially District Collector was not added as party to the suit. He would also submit that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the petition is allowed.

12. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration supported the order of the trial Court.

13. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it? If so, order under revision is liable to be set aside?

14. No doubt suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking direction to defendant No.1 to register the document.

15. A perusal of the averments in the plaint would indicate about plaintiffs’ presenting document before Sub-Registrar, rejection of the document by defendant No.1, filing of appeal before defendant No.2 and the order passed by District Registrar.

16. In the written statement filed by the defendants, in fact it was specifically contended that apart from other contentions that State represented by District Collector should be made as party defendant to the suit.

17. Plaintiffs, however, did not file any application to add District Collector as party defendant