IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4838, 4849 AND 4861 OF 2007 DATED:03.12.2010 Between: G. Lalith Mohan … Petitioner And Smt. V. Shakuntala and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4838, 4849 AND 4861 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These three civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dt.12.10.2007 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in returning the applications filed by the petitioner. Since the revisions petitions are inter-connected and arise out of one suit, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The fourth respondent herein is the plaintiff while the respondents herein 1 to 3 are the defendants in O.S. No.593 of 1995 before the Court below. The suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale was decreed ex parte on 20.7.1996. Respondents 1 to 3 – defendants filed an application – I.A. No.338 of 2006 to set aside the ex parte decree. As there was delay of 3,802 days in filing the said application, they filed I.A. No.1482 of 2006 to condone the delay. By order dt.22.6.2007 the delay was condoned and the application – I.A. No.1482 of 2006 was allowed. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner in these revisions, who is a third party to the suit, filed I.A. (SR) No.3376 of 2007 in I.A.No.1482 of 2010 seeking permission to file review petition; I.A. (SR) No.3377 of 2007 in I.A. No.1482 of 2006 to review the order dt.22.6.2007, in condoning the delay in filing the set aside petition; and I.A.(SR) No.3748 of 2007 in I.A. NO.338 of 2006 in O.S.No.593 of 2006 to implead the petitioner as party respondent/defendant in the applications and in the suit. The Court below, by orders dt.12.10.2007, returned the applications of the petitioner. Hence, the revision petitions. The case of the petitioner is that one Rajalingam did not honour the agreement of sale entered with the plaintiff, with regard to the property bearing House No.1-2-365/9/A, situated at Phoolbagh, Domalguda, Hyderabad, and later said Rajalingam died leaving behind respondent Nos.1 and 2 and husband of respondent No.3 to succeed the property. Subsequently, by reason of the execution of registered sale deed, dt.19.11.1998, through the Court, the fourth respondent – plaintiff became absolute owner of the said property. Later, he gave the property to his sister, as gift. The petitioner herein has purchased the said property through registered sale deed dt.21.8.2006, from one K. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, general power of attorney holder of sister of the fourth respondent - plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he has right, title and interest in the suit property. The main grievance of the petitioner is that having regard to the long delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, which has remained unexplained, review of the order dt.22.6.2007 in I.A. No.1482 of 2006, is essential. Further, in view of the changed circumstances and subsequent events, there has been transfer of title with regard to the property, and as such the petitioner is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The petitioner is a purchaser of the property in question subsequent to the sale affected through registered sale deed dt.21.8.2006. Admittedly, without impleading the petitioner herein, the fourth respondent – plaintiff filed the suit and the respondents 1 to 3 – defendants filed applications. The Court below, instead of taking up the applications filed by the petitioner and disposing of the same on merits after giving opportunity to both sides, returned the applications observing that since no suit is pending as on that day, impleading third party as a party to the suit does not arise, and reviewing of order on the application of a third party cannot be entertained. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, this Court is of the view that the applications filed by the petitioner should have been processed and disposed of on merits, instead of returning the same with the objections. Normally, when applications claiming substantial rights of the parties are filed, it is always preferable to have a decision on merits by holding enquiry rather than rejecting or returning the same at the threshold. Such a practice has been deprecated by this Court on several times. The question whether such applications ultimately can be allowed or not depends on facts of each case and only after considering merits, and especially taking into consideration the relevant pleas of both the sides. In the circumstances, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dt.12.10.2007 in I.A.(SR) Nos.3376 and 3377 of 2007 in I.A.No.1482 of 2010, and I.A.(SR) No.3748 of 2007 in I.A. No.338 of 2006 in O.S.No.593 of 2006, are set aside. The Court below is directed to process the three applications filed by the petitioner, number the same and take up for disposal on merits in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties. No costs. _______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 03.12.2010 bnr