THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2522 of 2023

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2023 in I.A.No.156 of 2023 in O.S.No.743 of 2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hanumakonda in dismissing the petition filed by him.

2. As the respondent No.2 refused to receive the notice, considering the same as deemed service, the respondent No.2 was set ex-parte.

3. Heard the petitioner – party in person.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondents – plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction initially against the sole defendant. Subsequently, the petitioner was impleaded as per the orders in I.A.No.621 of 2021 dated 03.08.2022. The petitioner was purchaser from defendant No.1.

5. The petitioner filed I.A.No.156 of 2023 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that fraud was played upon the court by the respondent No.2 – plaintiff alleging that the 2^nd plaintiff had not taken any GPA from his father i.e. the 1^st plaintiff and the 2^nd plaintiff had no right to be a party to the Suit. He was not having any legal rights / GPA from his father. The 1^st plaintiff died on 21.08.2017 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. The 2^nd plaintiff had not even filed the death certificate and not brought the legal representatives of the 1^st plaintiff on record and had not complied Order XXII Rules 2 and 3 and violated the mandatory provisions. The plaintiff No.2 with a malafide intention filed the suit for declaration without the knowledge of his father and other family members only to extract money and harass the defendants. He further contended that the plaintiffs filed Encumbrance Certificate showing Survey No.900 instead of new Survey No.900/1 by misleading material facts and filed pahanies up to the year 2008 only and no pahanies as on the date of institution of the suit were filed to prove their possession. The plaintiffs failed to state with regard to the limitation aspect. The period of limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 was three (03) years which commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiffs’ right to sue accrued on wrong entries in the revenue records. The suit was liable to be rejected as the same was not filed within the period of limitation.

6. The respondent - plaintiff filed counter contending that the plaintiff No.1 died after filing the suit. As the plaintiff No.2, who was the son of plaintiff No.1 was already on record, the plaintiff No.2 was continuing by contesting the suit proceedings. No GPA was required as the plaintiff No.2 was having right title and interest in the suit schedule property. There were no valid grounds to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner – defendant and prayed to dismiss the application.

7. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the parties and on hearing the counsel on record, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner – defendant No.2, observing that no fraud was committed by the 2^nd plaintiff against the court.

8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13.07.2023 in dismissing his application filed vide I.A.No.156 of 2023, the defendant No.2 preferred this revision contending that the trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff No.2 had no legal right to be a party to the suit. He was not having any legal rights or GPA or any authorization from his father. The trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff No.1 died on 21.08.2017 and the plaintiff No.2 had not filed the death certificate of his father or legal heir certificate or any GPA from the legal representatives of his father. He filed the suit with a malafide intention without the knowledge of his father and other family members, only to extract money and harass the defendants. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that non-compliance of Order XXII Rules 2 and 3 was m