THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 9 4 3 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 02-3-2009 passed in I.A.No. 159 of 2009 in O.S.No. 696 of 2007 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs, which was filed under Order-47, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the order dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No. 696 of 2007, the present revision is filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this revision would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint. 3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs herein, who filed OS.No.696 of 2007 seeking declaration that they are the legal heirs of late SMLN Das. The late father of the plaintiffs during his life time had purchased a plot in an extent of 305 sq.yards equivalent to 271 sq.mts. in Survey No. 314 situate at Dilsuknagar, Gaddiannaram village of Saidabad Revenue Mandal. Thereafter, the Defendants filed LGC.No. 113 of 1989 before the Land Grabbing Tribunal seeking eviction of the plaintiffs. The Land Grabbing Tribunal directed the respondents to collect Rs.600/- per sq.yards towards the value of the plot and register the sale deed. Questioning the same, the plaintiffs filed WP.No.12076 of 1993 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 07-6-2000 in WP.No.12076 of 1993 modified the value of Rs.600/- to Rs.500/- and the said order of this Court was confirmed by the Apex Court by an order dated 19-2-2001 in SLP. (Civil) No. 3658 of 2001. While things stood thus, the plaintiffs approached the defendants to register the sale deed in their favour on the ground that they are the only legal heirs of late SMLN Das. The first defendant by its order dated 28-9-2006 directed the plaintiffs to obtain succession certificate from the competent civil court. In view of the said direction, the plaintiffs filed the above suit seeking declaration along with I.A.SR.No. 2303 of 2007 for dispensing with the issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. and the said I.A. was ordered by the trial Court on 07-4-2007. 4. It is stated that the plaintiffs have let-in evidence and marked all the relevant documents and the defendants though filed written statement but reported no evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs as well as defendants held that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late SMLN Das and has dismissed the main suit by judgment dated 28-11-2008 on the ground that no notice under section 80 of C.P.C. was issued before filing the suit by the plaintiffs. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed the present Revision Petition. 6. Sri K. Shiva Reddy, the learned counsel representing the Revision Petitioners-Plaintiffs vehemently contended that the trial Court erred in holding that the review is maintainable only in the case of typographical mistake instead of holding that the mistake apparent on the face of the judgment is a ground for reviewing its own judgment. The trial Court did not consider that it has already dispensed with issuance of notice Section 80 of CPC by an order dated 07-4-2007 in I.A.SR.No. 2303 of 2007, which was filed by the Revision Petitioners at the time of filing of the main suit seeking to dispense with issuance of notice. Though the trial Court held issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants but issue No.2 was answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants inasmuch as holding the Revision Petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased, late Sri SMLN Das. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners therefore sought to set aside the order dated 02-3-2009 passed in I.A.No. 159 of 2009 in O.S.No. 696 of 2007 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs, which was filed under Order-47, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the order dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No.696 of 2007. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and on perusing the judgment and decree dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No.696 of 2007, it appears that at the time of filing of the main suit, the Revision Petitioners-Plaintiffs have filed I.A.SR.No.2303 of 2007 seeking to dispense with the filing of issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC and the said I.A.SR.No.2303 of 2007 was ordered by the learned trial Judge on 07-4-2007. On perusal of the judgment and decree impugned in this revision, it appears that the impugned judgment dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No.696 of 2007 is conspicuously silent about the order passed in I.A.SR.No.2303 of 2007 on 07-4-2007. The said aspect was neither canvassed nor adverted to by the learned trial Judge and on the said aspect the judgment impugned is conspicuously silent about the I.A. filed by the Revision Petitioners-Plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order also has not applied his mind to review the mistake crept in the judgment dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No.696 of 2007 and simply dismissed the I.A.No.159 of 2008 holding that there are no merits. First of all, having committed mistake of non-consideration of I.A.SR.No.2303 of 2007, dated 07-4-2007 while disposing of the main suit, again when I.A.No.159 of 2008 was filed to review the judgment dated 28-11-2008 passed in O.S.No.696 of 2007, the trial Judge instead of allowing the said I.A. the trial Judge held that review of the judgment can be done only if there is typographical mistake. Hence, it is very ridiculous on the part of the trial Judge in passing such orders in a casual manner without going through the record. This Court seriously discerns and deprecates such type of disposal by non-application of mind in a post-haste manner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly drew the attention of this Court with regard to the error apparent on the face of record. 8. Under the above circumstances, the order dated 02- 3-2009 passed in I.A.No. 159 of 2009 in O.S.No. 696 of 2007 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside and the VII-Senior Civil Judge is directed to pass orders afresh in I.A.No. 159 of 2007 in O.S.No. 696 of 2007 unequivocally by taking into consideration the order dated 07-4-2007 passed in I.A.SR.No.2303 of 2007 in O.S.No.696 of 2007, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 21-08-2009. I s L N B : Furnish CC in two days B/o. I s L