THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3141 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.687 of 2022 (old O.S.No.943 of 2013) on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent, his brother, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the said suit, he has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide I.A.No.622 of 2024 to implead Sri Nomula Venkateshwarlu, Smt.Gatla Bhagyamma, Smt.Madishetty Santhamma and Smt.Guduru Leelamma and in the place of Smt.Eshwaramma her sons Sri M.Madishetty Raja Gopal, Sri M.Chakradari, Sri M.Balagi and Sri Parameshwar, who are his sisters, brother-in-law and nephews, as parties to the suit, contending that his father and mother died. His deceased parents blessed with two sons and five daughters. He has five sisters. Out of five sisters, two sisters i.e., Smt.Nomula Devakamma and Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma died. Smt.Nomula Devakamma was issue less. In the place of Smt.Nomula Devakamma, her husband has to be impleaded. The husband of Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma also died. Therefore, on behalf of Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma, her four sons have to be impleaded as party defendants and their particulars are mentioned above.

3. It is further contended that at the time of institution of the suit, he has not shown them as parties to the suit since at the time of performance of their marriages his father provided enough cash, gold ornaments and properties to them towards their share. There is no claim over the subject property. After the death of his father, subject property devolves as interstate succession among them. During the life time of his father only in the presence of all his sisters, his father made the division of the subject property in between himself and the respondent allotting equal shares to each. Therefore, he is intending to add his sisters, his brother-in-law and nephews as parties to the suit.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter contending that there is a delay in filing the said application and petitioner has filed the aforesaid application with false and baseless allegations. The pleadings are contradictory.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the said application is filed for impleadment of his sisters, brother-in-law and nephew contending that they are not entitled for a share in the suit schedule property as they were sufficiently given monitory and valuable gold ornaments at the time of their marriages. With the aforesaid finding, the said application was dismissed.

6. As discussed supra, petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.943 of 2013 in the year 2013 against the respondent seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit filed in I.A.No.622 of 2024 itself, he has specifically pleaded that his sisters has no share. His father divided and allotted half share to the petitioner and half share to the respondent over the suit schedule property in the presence of their sisters. Though he has filed the suit in the year 2013, he has filed the present application only in the year 2024 to implead his sisters, brother-in- law and nephews as parties to the said suit. There is a delay of eleven (11) years. There is no explanation, much less the plausible explanation from the petitioner for the said abnormal delay.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that an application under the Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment can be filed at any stage and the said principle was also laid down in Smt.Aswathamma v. H.M.Vijayaraghava, AIR 1999 Karnataka 21and Shidlingappa Basawantappa Shipari v. Padmabai, MANU/KA/0213/1986. But in the present case, even according to the petitioner his sisters have no