ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated

04.07.2023 in Memo S.R.No.1490 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The petitioners herein are plantiff Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in the suit and respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 in the appeal. Petitioner Nos.7 and 8 are respondent Nos.12 and 14 in the appeal. Respondent No.1 herein is defendant No.1 in the suit and appellant in the appeal. Respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.2 in the suit and respondent No.11 in the appeal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the suit and respondent Nos.1 and 3 in the appeal. Respondent No.5 is not necessary party. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1902 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 i.e., Hasthinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, (for short, ‘Association’) and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 GHMC filed A.S.No.77 of 2019, in which defendant No.2 Association was also made party as respondent No.11, though the suit was not pressed against defendant No.2 Association by the plaintiffs. When the said discrepancy was pointed out by defendant No.2 Association, defendant No.1 filed Memo SR.No.1490 of 2023 seeking permission for withdrawing the statement of not press filed against defendant No.2 Association and the said Memo was accepted and upheld vide Order dated 04.07.2023 permitting defendant No.1 GHMC to withdraw the statement of not press against defendant No.2 Association. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners herein.

4. Heard Ms.Tejaswini Mereddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.364 of 2010 in O.S.No.1902 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the proposed defendant as defendant No.2 in the suit and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 20.04.2010 and the said dismissal order was not challenged thereof. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that having not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association, the defendant No.1 GHMC filed a Memo to withdraw the statement of not press and the Appellate Court has committed error in accepting the Memo and permitting to withdraw the statement of not press against defendant No.2 Association.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Yousuf Ali Vs.

1.Mohd. Yousuf and others, [C.R.P.No.4794 of 2015], wherein it is held that no judicial Order can be passed based on memo. Filling of memo is not contemplated either under Code of Civil Procedure or under Civil Rules of Practice. The purpose of receiving memos by the Courts is only to receive certain intimation pertaining to the lis pending before it. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Appellate Court is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.1 has not disputed the facts of the case and the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. However, he sought liberty to avail the remedies as avail