IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4568 OF 2009 Between: Y.G.Nagendra Reddy and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Y.Gopal Reddy .... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVESION PETITION No. 4568 OF 2009 O R D E R: The plaintiffs in O.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur are the revision petitioners. The suit is filed against the father/sole defendant seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.440 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead the defendants 2 to 4 stating that they are the proper and necessary parties to the suit. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the proposed defendants were brothers of the defendant and all of them having colluded, got O.S.No.80 of 2006 decreed by an award of the Lok Adalath in respect of the suit schedule properties. The application was opposed by the defendant and the Court below by order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed I.A.No.440 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. On the basis of the material produced before the Court, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs could make out a prima-facie case that the suit schedule properties were the subject matter of O.S.No.80 of 2006, which was decreed by an award passed by the Lok Adalath on 25.11.2006. Since the suit schedule properties were the subject matter of O.S.No.80 of 2006, which was decreed without making the petitioners herein as parties, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the presence of the proposed parties is essential to effectually decide the questions involved in the suit. As the Court below, while dismissing the application, failed to consider the above contention of the plaintiffs, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the order under Revision dated 31.08.2009 is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to reconsider the I.A.No.440 of 2008 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after hearing both parties, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ____________ Date: 08.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd