This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District, in I.A. No.1031 of 2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2014, dated 27.12.2023.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the I.A. No.1031 of 2023 had been filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.PC. for impleading the petitioner/proposed defendant No.3, and the trial Court allowed the said I.A. without issuing any notice to the revision petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent served the notice on the revision petitioner through RPAD, and he filed a Memo along with a track report.

5. A perusal of the docket order, dated 27.12.2023 of the trial Court goes to show that Memo with track report of respondent No.1 is filed. Respondent No.1 did not receive the notice by RPAD despite intimation. Hence, respondent No.1 is called absent and set ex parte. If that be so, the respondent ought to have filed an application for substitute service, but he did not do so.

The trial Court also did this without going into the merits and allowed the I.A. No.1031 of 2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2014 in ex