THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2057 of 2009 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, filed the present Civil Revision Petition questioning the order, dated 24.04.2009, passed in I.A.No.54 of 2009 in the said suit. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein instituted the said suit for declaration of her title and for consequential permanent injunction against respondents 2 to 10 herein. At a stage when the plaintiff’s evidence was over and the suit was coming up for defendant’s evidence, respondents 1 and 2 filed the said application i.e. I.A.No.54 of 2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC stating that they are also the heirs of Laxmaiah from whom the plaintiff is claiming rights over the suit schedule property and as such, they are necessary parties to the said suit. The said application was allowed by the Court below by its order, dated 24.04.2009. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below while allowing the said application has not assigned any reasons as to why and how respondents 1 and 2 are necessary parties to the suit and they should come on record. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the impugned order and the said contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The Court below, having discussed the ratio laid down by this Court i n A.Peterson Israel Vs. V.Jayaprada and others[1], which was relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, observed that the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. Thereafter, the Court below observed that in view of the fact that the suit is filed for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction, respondents 1 and 2 are necessary parties to the suit. In my considered view, the said finding of the Court below, without assigning any valid reasons thereto, is a cryptic one. The Court below has a duty to express as to how and why respondents 1 and 2 should be brought on record, but the same is missing in the impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 24.04.2009, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, for fresh consideration of I.A.No.54 of 2009 in O.S.No.89 of 2005 on his file and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 29th October 2010 dr [1] 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 102