COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. Challenging the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.1142 of 2023 in O.S.No.338 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, C.R.P.No.3798 of 2023 is filed.

3. Challenging the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.467 of 2023 in O.S.No.338 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, C.R.P.No.3804 of 2023 is filed.

4. The brief facts of the cases are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.338 of 2022 seeking partition, separate possession, and cancellation of a sale deed. During proceedings, petitioner/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.467 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint stating lack of cause of action, oral partition occurred at marriages, delay beyond 12- year limitation of the plaintiff, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent/plaintiff denied these allegations, stating equal shares in the property acquired from their father and that defendants failed to partition despite requests. The trial court after hearing both sides, vide order dated 11.08.2023, dismissed the petition holding that issues raised are triable and non-joinder of parties can be decided in the main suit after trial. The petitioner then filed C.R.P.No.3804 of

2023, challenging this decision.

5. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1142 of 2023 under Order I Rule 9 CPC, seeking to add all necessary parties, alleging the plaintiff colluded with defendant Nos.2 and 3, suppressing facts, and non-joinder of six legal heirs of late Laxmaiah Setty. The plaintiff denied these claims, stating no mis-joinder or non-joinder, and only defendant Nos.1-3 are legal heirs of late Tippayya Setty and Suvarna Gupta. The trial court after hearing both sides, vide order dated 30.10.2023, dismissed the petition, holding that non-joinder is a defense available to the defendant, and the suit cannot be rejected/dismissed without trial. The trial Court noted the defendant previously made similar allegations in a rejected plaint rejection petition. The petitioner then filed C.R.P.No.3798 of 2023, challenging this decision.

6. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though notice served upon the respondents, none appeared on their behalf.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court should reverse dismissal of I.A.No.467 of 2023 of the trial Court, as it was illegal, contrary to law and facts, and weight of evidence. The trial Court erred in not allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates rejection of plaints lacking cause of action or barred by limitation. The plaintiff admitted paternal grandparents had three children (Tippayya Setty, Siddamma, and Adivamma), and Defendant No.1 pleaded non- joinder of necessary parties in paragraph 13 of the written statement. An absence of necessary party renders the suit liable to dismissal. The trial Court overlooked this, permitting potentially sham litigation to proceed. The appellate Court should intervene, as the power to terminate civil actions under Order 7 Rule 11 requires strict adherence to enumerated conditions. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing these civil revision petitions.

8. After careful consideration of the submissions presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and a thorough review of the material on record, this Court deems it fit to set aside the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.1142 of 2023 due to its erroneous determination regarding the necessity of impleading Siddamma and Adivamma as parties to the suit. Further, the plaintiff