HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1043 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

01.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in O.S.No.276 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard M. Kamalakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the revision is disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos. 8 to 10 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present civil revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.276 of 2007 before Senior Judge at Chevella Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession in respect of agriculture land admeasuring Ac.01-08 guntas in survey number 80 and 81 respectively, situated at Bulkapur village, Shankar Palli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondent Nos. 4 to 10/defendants Nos.1 to 7. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 8 to 10, were impleaded vide orders in I.A.No. 41 of

2017.

5. It appears that respondent No. 10 purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.20 gts, in Sy No. 80/AA and Ac.02-04 gts, in Sy.No.81/AA totally admeasuring to Ac.2.24 gts, from respondent No. 6 and in turn, the respondent Nos.6, alienated the same in favour of respondent No. 1 to 3 herein. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, an understanding was arrived between petitioner and respondents Nos.1 to 3 as per which the petitioners agreed to relinquish their rights, over the above extent of land admeasuring Ac.02.24 gts and confirming the rights under register sale deed bearing document No.1369/2015, dated 11.03.2015 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.NO.80/AA and Ac.2-04 gts in respect of Sy.No.81/AA, total admeasuring of Ac.2- 24 gts., situated at Bulkapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is only a part of the schedule property. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1 of 2018 for recording the settlement arrived between the parties in respect of relinquishment of rights in favour of the petitioners herein. However, application was filed under Order XXII Rule 6 of CPC mistakenly, instead of under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, therefore, the trial court dismissed the same vide order dated 01.11.2022. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mentioning of wrong provision cannot be ground for dismissing any application. He further contended that, it is settled principle that court should entertain an application even though wrong provision is mentioned and as such trial court has failed to exercise discretion vested in it. Therefore prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.11.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that leave may be granted to the petitioner to file fresh application for recording the settlement arrived between the parties.

7. A perusal of the record would disclose that during pendency of the suit, a settlement has been arrived between the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in respect of part of the suit schedule property and as per which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to relinquish their rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.NO.80/AA and Ac.2-04 gts in respect of Sy.No.81/AA, total admeasuring of Ac.2-24 gts. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2018 was filed to record the terms of settlement, however, the application was filed under Order XXII Rule 6 of CPC instead of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Hence, the trial court dismissed the same vide order dated 01.11.2022, on the ground that recording the terms of compromise under Order