THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1198 OF 2008 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet in I.A. No.285 of 2007 in O.S. No.388 of 2002 dated 30.01.2008. The suit in O.S. No.388 of 2002 was filed for declaration of title over the suit schedule land, and for possession of land admeasuring Ac.0.07 guntas in Survey No.392 of Ponkal village. In the plaint, the respondents-plaintiffs contended that their father and his brother Ramtenki Bheemalingu (defendant No.26) had jointly purchased an extent of Ac.1.06 guntas in the year 1954-55 from Md. Sharfuddin for Rs.570/- and had taken possession thereof; at the time of preparation of the kasra record the name of Ramatenki Bheemalingu was entered as the pattedar as he was the elder brother, though both he and the respondents-plaintiffs’ father were in joint possession and enjoyment of equal rights; both the brothers had partitioned the suit land about 40 years ago; and defendant No.26 got Ac.0.23 guntas of land in the eastern side and the plaintiff’s father got Ac.0.23 guntas in the western side; and eversince then both of them continued to be in possession of their respective shares of Ac.0.23 guntas of land. The respondents- plaintiffs would submit that defendant Nos.1 to 25 had illegally occupied Ac.0.07 guntas of land seven years ago; they had fixed poles, had erected huts, and were conducting petty business. The respondent-plaintiffs claim to have issued a legal notice demanding delivery of vacant possession. They contended that defendant Nos. 1 to 25 were in illegal occupation of the Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy. No.392 of Ponkal village; and as the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the suit schedule land, and defendant Nos. 1 to 25 were in illegal occupation of the suit schedule land, they were liable to be evicted therefrom. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant No.26 is the elder brother of late Ramatenki Pocham in whose name the patta of the suit land stands; and he was arrayed as a party to the suit as he was a proper party. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose seven years ago when defendant Nos.1 to 25 illegally occupied the suit schedule land of Ac.0.07 guntas, along with the vacant land of Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy. No.392 of Ponkal village where the suit schedule property is situate. The plaintiffs herein, who are defendant Nos.6 and 12 in the Suit, filed I.A. No.285 of 2007 to reject the plaint on the ground that, as the suit had abated against defendant No.26, it stood abated against the other defendants also. In the order under revision, the Court below noted that the Presiding Officer, in his order dated 07.02.2006, had held that the suit had abated against defendant No.26. The Court below observed that D-26 was only a formal party, there no need to implead his legal heirs, and that abatement of D-26 did not justify rejection of the plaint as prayed for by the petitioners. The petition filed, to reject the plaint, was dismissed. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the question of rejection of the plaint, on account of the suit having abated against D-26, must be examined only on the basis of the averments in the plaint. Learned Counsel would contend that, since there is a joint cause of action between defendant Nos.1 to 26, abatement of the suit as against D-26 would entail the suit being dismissed against all the defendants necessitating the plaint being returned. Learned Counsel would submit that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the Court below to frame issues, permit evidence to be let in, and adjudicate the suit in as much as the joint cause of action between all the defendants would necessitate the suit being dismissed as abated, or the plaint being rejected. Sri C.R. Pratap Reddy, Learned Counsel for the respondent- defendants, would draw attention of this Court to paragraph 7 and 8 of the plaint wherein the plaintiffs asserted that defendant No.26 was the elder brother of late Ramtenki Pocham, the name of defendant No.26 was shown as the pattedar of the suit land, and he was made a party to the suit as he was a proper party. The cause of action, as is evident from the plaint, is jointly against defendant Nos.1 to 25 on the plea that they had illegally occupied the suit schedule land. There is no joint cause of action between defendants 1 to 25 on the one hand and defendant No.26 on the other. As such abatement of the suit against defendant No.26 would not, automatically, result in the suit having abated against all the defendants or for the plaint to be rejected. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would further submit that, since the petitioners had purchased the suit schedule land from defendant No.26, the suit having been abated against D-26 would only mean that the plaintiffs could not seek any relief from the revision petitioners herein. The question whether the petitioners herein had purchased the land from D-26 or whether they are in illegal possession thereof, are all questions which are required to be examined by the Court below only after a full-fledged trial. I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of the Court below, as the said order cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality or to have caused manifest injustice to the petitioners herein. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ Date: 24.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR