THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI I.A.NOs.2 to 4 of 2025 IN/AND C.R.P.NO. 1419 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

19.09.2024 in passed in I.A.No.529 of 2015 in LAC No.213 of 2013 in O.S.No.04 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the suit O.S.No.04 of 2007. The suit was filed for partition and a preliminary decree was passed in the suit. The suit schedule property consisted of Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties. It is submitted that there was no dispute with regard to the Schedule-B property and as regards the Schedule-A property, the matter was settled between the parties and all the parties relinquished their rights towards their respective shares of the Schedule-A properties in favour of the Petitioner No.1 and final decree proceedings were final decree, the name of the Petitioner No.1 was recorded in the revenue records as absolute owner and possessor and was enjoying the same. Thereafter, the respondents No.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, who are not concerned with the Schedule-A property and who have compromised with the petitioners before the Lok Adalat, have filed I.A.No.214 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. r/w 151 of C.P.C. for setting aside the final decree orders passed on 25.07.2015 and the same was allowed on 28.07.2017 and the case was re-opened. In the meantime, it is stated that the Petitioner No.1 has sold the Schedule-A property to the Petitioner No.13 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.12121/2019, dated 21.12.2019, to meet his personal expenses and that the Petitioner No.13 is presently in possession and enjoyment of the same as rightful owner and he was also impleaded in the suit vide orders in I.A.No.146 of 2022, dated 13.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.529 of 2015 to pass the final decree, which was due to be The respondents/defendants have objected to the same and therefore, the I.A., was dismissed and challenging the same, the

present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the Schedule-B property and with regard to the Schedule-A property also, all the parties have relinquished their rights in favour of the Petitioner No.1 and in view of the final decree passed in favour of the Petitioner No.1, he has sold away the property in favour of the Petitioner No.13 and all that he is seeking is to pass a final decree in favour of the Petitioner No.13 instead of the Petitioner No.1 to the extent of his share only in view of the registered document executed in favour of the Petitioner No.13.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents is also heard, who vehemently opposed the same. However, this Court observes that since this is the case of settlement and there is no challenge to the preliminary decree and it is only pending for passing of the final decree and Petitioner No.1 has already divested his right to Petitioner No.13, the application under Order XXI Rule 16 of C.P.C. can be allowed and the decree to be

5. In view of the above, the Trial Court is directed to pass the final decree in respect of Petitioner No.1 to the extent of his share only in favour of Petitioner No.13.

6. The I.As.No.2 to 4 of 2025 are filed to condone the delay in filing the set aside applications for setting aside the orders of abatement caused due to the death of the Petitioner No.7 and also to bring the LRs of the Petitioner No.7 on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is only after the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, that the Petitioner No.7 has died and therefore these applications were filed. However, This Court is of the opinion that these applications are to be filed before the Trial Court. With liberty to the petitioners