THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2591 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 03.08.2023 in I.A.No.484 of 2022 in O.S.No.280 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. 2. O.S.No.280 of 2017 (Old O.S.No.911 of 2003) is filed by respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs for partition. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.484 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner/proposed plaintiff No.3 to permit him to transpose himself as proposed plaintiff No.3 in the main suit. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the application and consequently dismissed the suit as abated on 03.08.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitionerh herein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner herein was defendant No.3 in the suit which was filed by his father Sada Shiva Reddy for partition of suit schedule property. After the death of his father, his wife, Sugunamma brought on record as legal representative and she died on 05.06.2021 and the petitioner filed I.A.No.484 of 2022 on 14.03.2022 to permit him as plaintiff No.3 as legal representative of plaintiffs, but it was dismissed. He further stated that there is no question of abatement of suit for partition since the plaintiffs and defendants stand on the same footing in a suit for partition. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. In the family genealogical tree, Sada Shiva Reddy was mentioned as plaintiff and petitioner herein was mentioned as defendant No.3. In the year 1975, there was family settlement towards land in Sy.No.604 and all the family members including plaintiff entered into M.O.U on 17.08.2001. On 01.07.1987, plaintiff and defendants No.1, 3 to 8 entered into family settlement deed and it shows that the schedule land is the joint family property and separated in the year 1972. The plaintiff sought for preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule A and B properties in Sy.No.604 admeasuring Ac.18.35 guntas situated at Pudur Village and Grampanchayat, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and House bearing No.14-181, admeasuring 500 Sq.yards situated at Kistapur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by dividing in three equal shares and to allot such each share to plaintiff, defendant No.3 and 4 as item No.1, defendant Nos.5 to 8 as item No.2 and defendant No.1 i.e., 1/3rd share as item No.3 and also for appointment of advocate commissioner for partition. During the pendency of the Suit, Sada Shiva Reddy died and his wife came on record as legal representative. She also died on 05.06.2021. She filed chief affidavit on 11.02.2011. Though the mother of the petitioner died on 05.06.2021 and she filed chief affidavit on 11.02.2011, nearly 10 years, she was not cross-examined before the trial Court. After her death, the petitioner filed an application to transpose himself as plaintiff No.3 on the ground that he was defendant No.3 in the suit and it is suit for partition, both the parities have equal interest but he has not stated any reason why he kept quiet for 10 years.

6. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner ought to have taken steps to transpose himself as plaintiff No.3 as he is legal representative of late Sugunamma within 90 days from the date of her death. He has not filed any application to condone the abnormal delay of 10 years. The trial Court clearly observed that he is not a proforma party and he also filed written statement in the suit and he got interest in the claim of the plaint and thus dismissed the said application. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs confirming the order of the trial Court d