APHC010275642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1448/2024 Between:

1. E SHILPA, , W/O. UPENDRA, D/O. NUTHANPATI PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

2. N . RAVINDRA,, S/O. NUTHANPATI PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BRAHMANTHAPURAM VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL.NANDYAL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. D R PULLIMADDI NAGA SESHULU, S/O. LATE P. NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. PRIVATE PRACTITIONER, R/O, H.NO. 20-78-2, GANDHI NAGAR, VELUGODU POST AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

2. N UTHANAPATI PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. BUSI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

3. N UTHANAPATI GANGADHAR, S/O, N. PEDDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BRAHMANTHAPURAM VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toggrieved by the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur passed in I.A.No.24 of 2023 m O.S.No,13 of 2022 dated 29.04.2024, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No. 13/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, pending disposal of the revision and passed such other order or and orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur in I.A.No.24 of 2023 in O.S.No.13 of 2022 whereby, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent/proposed party under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as „CPC‟), requesting the Court below to add him as defendant in the suit.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(a) The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the daughter and younger son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the elder son of defendant No.1. Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to one N. Busi Reddy, grandfather of the plaintiffs. After his death, the property succeeded in favour of N. Ratnamma, who is the grandmother of the plaintiffs and she died on 12.05.2009. Vide a partition deed dated 20.09.2014, the plaint schedule property fell into the share of the 1^st defendant.

(b) The plaint schedule property, is originally situated in Sy.No.1101, upon survey, it was identified that the property falls in Sy.No.1102. The plaintiff and defendants possess the land to an extent of Acs.1.65 cents in Sy.No.1102 and Acs.1.65 cents in Sy.No.1101. Out of Acs.1.65 cents in Sy.No.1102, the 1^stdefendant sold Acs.1.00 cents to Vali Basha and Shareef of Atmakur. But, the defendants started claiming that the remaining Acs.0.65 cents belongs to them by creating false revenue records of the plaint schedule property. As such, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.13 of 2022 before the Court below for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs.

(c) It is the case of respondent/proposed party that he has purchased the land to an extent of Acs.0.20 cents in Sy.No.1101 of Atmakur revenue village from the 1^st defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2016 and has been in possession of the same. Later, respondent/proposed party came to know that the survey number in his sale deed was mentioned as 1101 instead of 1102 by mistake; upon knowing the same, they approached the 1^st defend