IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6370 of 2005 & Civil Revision Petition No.6298 of 2005 Between: Kandimalla Haribabu … Petitioner And: Kotha Manikyamma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6370 of 2005 & Civil Revision Petition No.6298 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.6370 of 2005 is directed against the order dated 07.02.2001 in EA No.32 of 2000 in EP No.114 of 1999 in OS No.187 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein, the said application filed by the 2nd respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, seeking to come on record as LR of the deceased decree holder (first respondent herein) alone was allowed. 2. CRP No.6298 of 2005 is directed against the order dated 21.09.2005 in EP No.114 of 1999 in OS No.187 of 1987, wherein the objections of the petitioner herein-4th JDr in the EP under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC, was over-ruled. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. As both the matters arose between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Perused the record. 4. The first respondent in both the revision petitions, filed suit OS No.187 of 1987 for recovery of amount against respondents 3 to 12 herein and the petitioner, who is 4th defendant. In execution of the decree, the first respondent herein filed EP No.114 of 1999 for realization of the amount due under the decree by attachment and sale of the schedule property. During pendency of the E.P., the decree holder (first respondent herein) died on 24.12.1999. The 2nd respondent herein filed EA No.32 of 2000 seeking to come on record as LR of the deceased decree- holder. In the cause title of the said petition and also in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the name of the first JDr-company alone is mentioned and the names of other JDrs including that of the petitioner are not mentioned. As seen from the impugned order, notice on first JDr-company was served and the notice on respondents 2 and 3 returned un-served and they were set ex- parte. The 2nd JDr entered appearance through Advocate. The impugned order is silent about the service of notice on the other JDrs, including the petitioner herein, who is 4th JDr. 5. In CRP No.6370 of 2005, this Court by order dated 15.07.2010 directed the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge to submit a report as to whether the notice in EA No.32 of 2000 was served on all the respondents. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by letter dated 12.08.2010 submitted that notice on first respondent (3rd respondent herein) was served, but notices of respondents 2 (3rd respondent herein) and 3 (petitioner herein-4th JDr) returned un-served. First respondent was called absent and set ex-parte on 10.07.2000, whereas 2nd respondent Kandimalla Venkateswarlu appeared through counsel and notice on petitioner herein (4th JDr) was ordered by way of publication in Vaartha daily news paper on 25.08.2000 and posted to 29.09.2000 and that on 29.09.2000 he was set exparte. The report further shows that in the paper publication, the date of hearing was noted as 25.09.2000 instead of 29.09.2000. 6. Firstly the petitioner herein-4th JDr was not shown as respondent at all in the cause title of EA No.32 of 2000. If one goes by the cause title in the EP, the petitioner herein was shown as 4th respondent-4th JDr. It is not known how the petitioner herein-4th JDr came to be described as 3rd respondent in EA No.32 of 2000 when the cause title of the said EA does not disclose the name of all the respondents. Secondly, even the publication appears to be defective as the date of hearing was noted as 25.09.2000 whereas the matter stood posted to 29.09.2000 on which date the ex-parte order was passed. From the material on record, it is clear that no notice was ordered against the petitioner herein in EA No.32 of 2000 and there was no service of notice on him. The cause title of the petition EA No.32 of 2000 itself is incomplete and hence, the said application is defective. In the circumstances, the impugned order allowing EA No.32 of 2000 and permitting the 2nd respondent herein to be impleaded as LR of the deceased first respondent herein(decree holder) without notice to the other respondents-JDrs in the EP, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge for consideration afresh after permitting the 2nd respondent to amend the cause title in EA No.32 of 2000 and after issuance of notice to the other respondents, including the petitioner herein-4th JDr and dispose of the same on its own merits. CRP No.6370 of 2005 is allowed accordingly. 8. Consequently, the impugned order in EP No.114 of 1999 dated 21.09.2005 over ruling the objections raised by the petitioner-4th JDr for impleading of 2nd DHr as LR of the deceased first DHr, is also set aside and CRP No.6298 of 2005 is also allowed accordingly. 9. In the result, both the revision petitions are allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.09.2011 bss