IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2795 OF 2008 BETWEEN Gampa Srinivasa Rao and four others. …PETITIONERS AND K. Charumarthi Devi and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: MR. A. RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. N. MUKUNDA REDDY The Court made the following: - ORDER: The petitioners, who claim to be the children of the second wife of one Late Gampa Rama Rao, seek to come on record as defendants in partition suit being O.S.No.15 of 2003 pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, with respect to partition of assets of Late Gampa Rama Rao. It appears that the suit was originally filed in the year 1993 and was transferred to the Court below later and numbered as O.S.No.15 of 2003. It is also not in controversy that the suit has progressed and evidence on the part of both sides was closed on 19.04.2007. 2. Petitioners state that they came to know of the pendency of this suit through the plaintiff and made an application for impleading themselves on 08.11.2006. It is asserted in the application that the petitioners are claiming as children born through the second wife viz. Varalakshmi, of Late Gampa Rama Rao and that they are proper and necessary parties to the suit and that they are also entitled to the share in the suit schedule properties. The said application was opposed only by the second defendant, who is now respondent No.3 in this revision, by pointing out that one of the proposed petitioners appeared as P.W.2 and deposed in the suit on behalf of the plaintiff on 06.07.2006. It is, therefore, alleged that at no point of time earlier thereto the petitioners sought impleadment in the suit and thereby it is alleged that the present application for impleadment is filed at the instance of the plaintiff and in collusion with the plaintiff. The Court below has rejected the implead application being I.A.No.1172 of 2006 by order dated 02.06.2008 on the ground that it is highly belated and is moved 13 years after the filing of the suit. 3. Heard both sides. The first respondent though served, nobody appears on his behalf. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, who had opposed the implead petition before the Court below, also opposes this revision by contending that the relationship pleaded by the petitioners itself is not accepted by any of the parties and this application is filed only to drag on the matter, which is already sufficiently old and in spite of completion of trial, on account of this application, which has come up to this Court by the present revision, the suit remains as it is without any further progress, as the petitioners had obtained interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit on 15.07.2008. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the plaint in O.S.No.15 of 2003 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against two defendants only and it relates to the partition of the assets of Late Gampa Rama Rao. The present petitioners claim that they are children of second wife of Late Gampa Rama Rao, who in all had three wives. The petitioners, therefore, assert that they have a share in the property of Late Gampa Rama Rao and as they were not aware of the pendency of the suit, they could not make this application earlier. The plaintiff has not opposed the said impleadment but the second defendant/third respondent herein has opposed the same. 6. As mentioned above, the first petitioner herein was examined as P.W.2 on 06.07.2006 and his evidence was completed on 19.07.2006, thereafter, the present application has been filed on 08.11.2006. During the pendency of the present application, the further evidence came to be completed on 04.01.2007 and thereafter; the evidence on behalf of both sides was closed on 19.04.2007. The application filed by the petitioners for impleading themselves, however, remained pending from 2006 and only came to be decided under the impugned order on 02.06.2008. It is, therefore, evident that as soon as the petitioners came to know of the pendency of the suit, on account of evidence given by P.W.2 on 06.07.2006 and 19.07.2006, this application was made on 08.11.2006. When the proposed petitioners were not made parties to the suit, the Court below has expected that they should have taken steps as soon as they came to know of the same. Even the impugned order itself states that after the first petitioner deposed he did not take steps to implead themselves in the suit, which is factually incorrect, inasmuch as the petitioners did make an application on 08.11.2006 itself. This being a suit for partition and the proposed petitioners are claiming to be legal heirs of Late Gampa Rama Rao based on the certificates etc. issued by the revenue authorities, prima facie, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Whether they are able to establish their relationship with Late Gampa Rama Rao and whether they are entitled to claim as legal heirs of Late Gampa Rama Rao, are matters for them to establish in the suit. 7. However, their request for impleadment in the partition suit cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay, as has been understood by the Court below. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and I.A.No.1172 of 2006 filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. The Court below shall accordingly permit the petitioners to be impleaded in the suit and from that stage onwards proceed with the disposal of the suit in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that since the suit is sufficiently old, the trial Court shall endeavour to proceed and dispose of the suit at the earliest. The petitioners undertake that they shall cooperate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. On receipt of a copy of this order, the Court below shall fix the next date of hearing on which date the petitioners shall appear and participate in the trial and proceed accordingly without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 8, 2010 DSK