IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.3 6 3 9 OF 2006 Between: Rani Bai & Anr. … Revision Petitioner V/s. L.Ramana Reddy & 4-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Sri Manik Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Muddu Vijaya THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CRP.No. 3 6 3 9 OF 2006 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 26-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 1161 of 2005 in OS.No.7331 of 2004 by the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under Order-1, Rule-10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to add them as Defendants 2 and 3 for effective adjudication of suit filed by the plaintiff, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the necessary parties in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. As the proposed petitioners are one of the owners of the property in survey No. 6, 7 and 8, therefore, their right is involved in the subject matter. It is stated that originally the first petitioner’s husband had purchased the land in an extent of 6000 and odd from one Kazim Ali Mirza in the year 1962 for a valid consideration and the said land is situated in survey No. 6 and subsequently the petitioners came to know that the land purchased by them is in survey No.6 as well as survey No.7. The petitioners filed voluminous documents to show that they are necessary parties to the suit and therefore filed the above application seeking to add them as Defendants 2 and 3 in the main suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that the proposed petitioners are not at all necessary parties to the suit and only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioners have come up with false and frivolous allegations stating that they are the owners in survey nos. 6, 7 and 8 of Mallepalli village, Hyderabad and further averred that the first petitioner’s husband also filed OS.No. 389 of 1989 on the file of the Court of First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the property admeasuring 1q486 sq.yards in survey No.6 of Mallepalli village, which was filed against Government of Andhra Pradesh, Commissioner of Endowments Departments and others and the said suit was dismissed on 08-11-1989 and the petitioners preferred CCCA.No. 32 of 1990 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the same is pending. It is further averred that the proposed petitioners are not at all connected in the above suit and the petitioners have nothing to do with the suit schedule property. It is averred that the respondents also stated how he has acquired the suit schedule property from late Kazim Ali Mirza and Ms. Zaheda Sulthana. The respondents filed certified copy of Judgment in OS.No.389 of 1989. Further it is averred that the petitioners are unnecessarily harassing the respondents for one reason or the other and whenever they filed suits the proposed petitioners are behind them and antecedents of the petitioners is only to harass the respondents, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above rival contentions, the learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties framed the following point for consideration: Whether the proposed petitioners are necessary and proper parties and whether they can be added as Defendants 2 and 3 to the suit ? 5. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application of the petitioners observing that if the petitioners are aggrieved they got separate remedy to agitate before the correct forum but not by way of the present application because the suit is filed only for rectification of correction of entries in TSLR records, as the grievance of the respondents-plaintiffs is against the Deputy Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records for correct entries in column No. 20 in respect of survey Nos. 7 and 8 and even if the proposed petitioners are added as parties to the suit, still the respondents-plaintiffs cannot seek any relief and moreover they filed documents to show that they are in possession of survey Nos. 7 and 8, which has to be decided at the time of full fledged trial of the suit and even if the proposed parties are added, no purpose will be served to the respondents-plaintiffs and even the petitioners will not have any scope to disprove that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of survey Nos. 7 and 8. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 7. This court perused the records. The record shows that on 15-09-2006 notice before admission was ordered by this court and no interim order was granted. 8. When the matter came up today, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the main suit, OS.No.7331 of 2004 has been decreed on 25-10-2006 by the IX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and nothing remains for adjudication. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Respondents and on perusing the records, it appears that the main suit is not pending. 10. Under the above circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 16-04-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3 6 3 9 OF 2006 CIRCULATION ENTRY No.5 0 Date: 16-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43