HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2444 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 26.06.2023 in I.A.No.471 of 2023 in O.S.No.318 of 2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

2. Heard Ms.K.Gayatri, learned counsel representing Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, Sri B.Sreenath, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 9, however, there is no representation on his behalf. Respondent Nos.10 to 30 are not necessary parties.

3. The petitioners herein are plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein are proposed plaintiff Nos.5 to 13, respondent Nos.10 to 30 are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit against the defendants to declare the sale deed dated 22.11.1988, as null and void and consequent relief of perpetual injunction. While the suit was pending for adjudication, respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein filed an application vide I.A.No.471 of 2023 to implead them as parties to the suit. The trial court vide impugned order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the application with the following observations:

“The suit is filed for alteration of entries in revenue records and pahanies in respect of survey numbers as mentioned in the plaint schedule from 1954 onwards and also to direct the Defendant No.1 and his subordinate officials to implead the Judgment of this court. Since, there is no counter from other side and as the suit is filed for rectification of entries in revenue records right from 1954 and in view of the plea of Will deed executed by the original pattedar, I feel the Petitioners are necessary and proper parties. Hence, the petition is allowed and the Petitioners are ordered to be parties impleaded as Plaintiffs No.5 to 13”

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.06.2023, the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application came up for hearing initially on 14.06.2023 and the plaintiffs have sought time to file counter-affidavit and on their request the matter was posted to 20.06.2023.

On 20.06.2023, counter could not be filed and therefore, sought time to file counter, however, the trial Court instead of granting time, disposed of the application erroneously.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit was filed to declare the sale deed, dated 22.11.1988, as null and void and also for perpetual injunction, whereas, the trial court has allowed the application with an observation that the suit is filed for alteration of entries in the revenue records and pahanies from 1954 onwards, which is in fact contrary to the record. She would further submit that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication so that the petitioners herein can file counter-affidavit and contest the application and the trial Court may be directed to adjudicate the application on merits.

8. A Perusal of record would disclose that the petitioners herein have filed a suit to declare the sale deed dated 22.11.1988, as null and void and for perpetual injunction, whereas, in the impugned order, dated 26.06.2023, the trial Court has observed that the suit is filed for alteration of entries in the revenue records and pahanies in respect of the suit schedule properties, which is factually incorrect, contrary to the record. The trial Court disposed of the said I.A. with an observation that no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners to file counter-affidavit and to contest the matter.

9. Perusal of the impugned order indicate that the trial Court failed to record reasons as to whether the propo