THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.2 of 2025 in /and SECOND APPEAL No.265 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel representing Smt. G. Rama Manoja, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who appeared virtually.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant – plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2024 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.1062 of 2022 by the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. The background facts of the case are that the suit in O.S.No.1062 of 2022 is filed to declare the appellant herein as legal heir of the deceased Chandradev Singh alias Shyam Singh, has been dismissed as the name of Late Chandradev Singh having alias name was not pleaded before the Trial Court. In the First Appeal, said error was rectified by producing documentary evidence to show that Late Chandradev Singh had alias name Shyam Singh. However, the appeal was dismissed on a different ground i.e. all the legal heirs of Late Chandradev Singh alias Shyam Singh are not arrayed as parties. The wife and daughter of late Chandradev Singh alias Shyam Singh were not shown as parties and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The current Second Appeal was preferred challenging both the judgments. Along with the Second Appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to implead the wife and daughter of late Chandradev Singh alias Shyam Singh as parties to the appeal.

4. In Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present Second Appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit by arraying all the legal heirs of late Chandradev Singh alias Shyam Singh.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported that the appellant intends to file a fresh suit as Second Appeal does not have the scope of impleading new parties as only substantial questions of law can be dealt with.

6. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether it was proper for the lower appellate court to dismiss the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties, without giving an opportunity to cure the defect?

b. Whether the lower appellate court acted within its jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal on a different finding from that of the trial court with regard to the non-joinder of other family members as parties to the suit?

7. The above substantial questions of law cannot be considered in view of the finding of the First Appellate Court that a suit for declaration of legal heirs is not maintainable when all the legal heirs are not arrayed as parties to the suit. In any case, the appellant intends to withdraw the present Second Appeal.

8. As the learned counsel for the appellant appeared virtually, he is not in a position to make endorsement on the case bundle to the effect of withdrawal. However, in view of the request made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the Second Appeal.

9. In the result, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed and the Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the appellant to pursue any other remedies available. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 06.10.2025 GVL THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.2 of 2025 in /and SECOND APPEAL No.265 of 2025

06.10.2025 gvl