THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4977 of 2007 AND CIVIL MISCELLNAEOUS APPEAL No.744 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since these two matters arise out of the same issue, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners-appellants are mainly aggrieved by the order of remand passed in the appeal while allowing an application filed by the Gram Panchayat to get impleaded at the stage of appeal. The appeal was allowed remanding the matter to the trial Court mainly on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was impleaded for the first time in the appeal on an application filed by it i.e., I.A.No.1747 of 2006. The C.R.P. is filed against the order passed in the said application and the C.M.A. is filed against the order passed in the appeal In O.S.No.249 of 2002 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, it was contended by the respondents/defendants that the land in dispute is a public rastha. However, not accepting the said contention, the suit was decreed. The respondents preferred A.S.No.47 of 2005. In the appeal, I.A.No.1747 of 2006 was filed by the Gram Panchayat to get impleaded in the matter. The said application was allowed and in view of the same, the appeal suit was allowed remanding the matter to the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that since there is a contention in the suit that the land in dispute is a public rastha, the Gram Panchayat was impleaded and accordingly the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the issue after giving opportunity to both sides to let in evidence, I do not see any error in the discretion exercised by the lower appellate Court and the impugned orders do not warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, the C.R.P. and the C.M.A. are dismissed. No costs. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 GHN