THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2000 OF 2011 DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN G.Nirmala and others …Petitioners And Yelimela Pentamma and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2000 OF 2011 O R D E R The petitioners filed I.A.No.89 of 2010 in O.S.No.357 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, under Order I, Rule 10(4) CPC seeking to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for partition and the father of the petitioners was arrayed as the second defendant therein. They filed the aforestated I.A. stating that their father was an alcoholic and that their rights and shares in the ancestral property would not be safeguarded unless they were made parties to the suit and protected their own interests. The said I.A. was however dismissed for non-prosecution by the trial Court by order dated 09.03.2011. Seeking restoration of the said I.A., the petitioners filed I.A.No.260 of 2011 therein. By order dated 15.04.2011, the trial Court dismissed the same. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not choose to put in their appearance either in person or through counsel. Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The order under revision reflects that the trial Court not only examined the matter on the aspect of setting aside the dismissal order but also the merits of the petitioners’ claim for impleadment in the suit. The trial Court was of the opinion that as the petitioners’ father was alive and was arrayed as a party to the suit, there was no necessity for his children to be brought on record. Opining so, the trial Court concluded that I.A.No.89 of 2010 filed in the suit was itself not maintainable. Dealing with the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.260 of 2011 for setting aside the dismissal order, the trial Court held that the explanation offered by the petitioners that they had gone to attend the funeral of a relation was not convincing and accordingly dismissed the I.A. The subject suit was filed for partition of ancestral properties and the petitioners herein, being the major sons and daughters of the second defendant, claimed interest in such properties. It was their further case that their father was an alcoholic and would not safeguard their rights. It was therefore necessary for the trial Court to go into these aspects in the suit. The trial Court ought not to have shut out the petitioners at the preliminary stage by holding that their application for impleadment was itself not maintainable on the ground that their father was a party to the suit. As the matter involved the valuable property rights claims of the petitioners, the trial Court ought not to have adopted a pedantic and narrow minded approach in dealing with their application for setting aside the dismissal order. Pertinent to note, the plaintiff filed a counter in I.A.No.260 of 2011 and she did not dispute their having gone out of station to attend a relation’s funeral. That being so, the trial Court ought not to have concluded that this explanation put forth by the petitioners was not convincing. The order of the trial Court dismissing the application in I.A.No.260 of 2011 filed for setting aside the order dismissing I.A.No.89 of 2010 is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.No.89 of 2010 in O.S.No.357 of 2006 is consequently restored to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, who shall proceed to deal with the same on its merits in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 24TH OCTOBER, 2011. PGS/VGSR