HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2927 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

22.12.2022 in I.A.No.684 of 2022 in O.S.No.362 of 2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Sri Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Respondent Nos.3 to 11 are not necessary parties to this revision.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are defendant Nos. 10 and 11, who are legal heirs of respondent No.4/defendant No.2, before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioner filed O.S.No.362 of 2021 against the respondent Nos. 3 to 11/defendant Nos.1 to 9 for declaration of the following as null and void:

a. To declare as null and void the document bearing No.922 of 1991 b. To declare as null and void registered sale deed bearing No.754 of 1993 c. To declare as null and void sale deed bearing No.1423/1993 d. To declare as null and void sale deed bearing No.2440/1993 e. To declare as null and void mortgage deed bearing No.1991 of 1993 f. To declare as null and void mortgage deed bearing No.2443 of 1993.

g. To award exemplary costs.

h. To grant a perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

i. To grant a perpetual injunction against the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to others.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 expired and no steps have been taken to bring the Legal representatives of the deceased on record. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are legal representatives of the defendant No.2 filed an application i.e., I.A. No.684 of 2022 to implead them in the suit as proposed defendants Nos. 10 and 11, under Order I, Ruled 10(2) r/w section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of CPC. In the said application, it was averred that defendant No.2 is the owner of the schedule ‘B’ of the suit schedule property and she expired on 24.04.2020 and therefore, her legal heirs are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the suit and also to avoid unnecessary complications. The trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 allowed the application without even giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file counter. Hence, the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the mother of respondent No.1 and 2, i.e. respondent No.4 was set ex-parte on 13.02.2020 and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instead of filing suitable application to set aside the ex-parte order, filed implead application which is impermissible and not maintainable. He further contended that the trial Court without considering the above aspects has mechanically allowed the application. Learned counsel also contended that order passed by the trial Court is cryptic and no reasons have been recorded by the trial Court while allowing the application. He further contended that no adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to file counter and oppose the application, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that though respondent No.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.684 of 2024 to implead them as proposed defendant Nos. 10 and 11 to the suit and I.A.No.685 of 2022 for direction to not alienate the suit schedule property, the petitioners have only challenged the L.R. application herein without challenging other applications. Therefore, on this ground also revision is liable to the dismissed.

8. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that in any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal, it shall record reasons for its conclusions.

9. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which