THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3647 of 2009 Date of Order: 13-11-2009 Between K.Srinivasa Reddy ..Petitioner and 1.K.Pravena and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3647 of 2009 Oral Order: 1. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.33 of 2008 for declaration of title and possession against the 2nd respondent, who is defendant in the suit, in which the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.2498 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead him as 2nd defendant in he suit contending that their father—Buchi Reddy had three sons, namely, K.Satyanarayana Reddy, K.Sinivasa Reddy (petitioner herein) and K.Suryanarayana Reddy and two daughters and they got married long back. K.Satyanarayana Reddy died long back and he got two sons, namely, Kovvuri Buchi Reddy and Laxmi Karunakara Reddy whose whereabouts are not known. Kovvuri Buchi Reddy married one Manohari, daughter of the 1st defendant in the suit and they begot one child by name Satish Raja. On the death of his wife—Manohari, Buchi Reddy married the plaintiff and through her there are no children. The petitioner is having substantial interest in the suit schedule property; therefore, he may be impleaded as 2nd defendant. Along with I.A. he filed the following four documents to substantiate his interest in the suit. 1.Ration Card belonging to the family members; 2. Election Identity Card of the petitioner; 3. Certified Copy of the sale deed dated 13-08- 1982 executed by G.Mangayamma in favour of the petitioner and 4. Xerox copy of the gift deed executed by mother of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. 2. A detailed counter has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The learned District Jude after extracting the pleadings, in paragraph-4 of the order held that no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on either side and the pleas taken by the 1st respondent in her counter petitioner has to place necessary claim to upheld his claim, but he has failed to do so for which adverse interference has to be drawn and accordingly dismissed. Questioning the same the present writ petition has been filed. 3. As per the direction issued by this Court, the above four documents were sent to this court. In view of the same, obviously the order passed by the learned District Judge on the ground that no documents have been filed cannot be upheld. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside remitting the matter to the lower court to decide the I.A. afresh after considering the above documents filed by the petitioner on merits. 4. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed. The Registry is directed to send the documents along with order copy by 19-11-2009 to the District Judge, East Godavari District and report compliance. No costs. ______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 13-11-2009 Murthy