THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8314 of 2002 ORDER: The un-successful appellant in O.A.No.86 of 2000 on the file of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved by the order dated 28-01-2002 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the said O.A. it was the petitioner’s case before the Tribunal that his property was brought to sale on 27-04- 2000 by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar-cum-Sale Officer, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nellore, the first respondent herein, under the impression that the said property belonged to the fourth respondent herein, the judgment debtor in E.P.No.217/97- 98. The property in question is an extent of Ac.0-23 cents situated in R.S.No.105/1 of Rosanuru Rajupalem village, Pellakuru mandal, Nellore district. The petitioner’s claim over the said land was based on an un-registered sale deed dated 15-08-1977 and the pattedar pass book issued in his favour by the Revenue Authorities. The Tribunal, taking due note of the fact that the petitioner had filed the appeal only after the confirmation of the sale, went on to consider the matter on merits and found that the petitioner could not be recognized as the owner of the subject land. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. No interim orders were granted by this Court in the present writ petition. While so, this Court, taking note of the fact that the fourth respondent, the judgment debtor in E.P.No.217 of 1997-98 had expired, granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to take steps to bring his legal representatives on record, directing that in the event of default, the case against the deceased fourth respondent would stand abated without reference to the Court. As the petitioner failed to take steps as directed, the order was given effect to by the Office on 30-10-2010. Thus, the writ petition presently stands dismissed as against the deceased fourth respondent. When the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the writ petition after its dismissal against the deceased fourth respondent. This Court was of the opinion that there could not be two conflicting decrees in the O.A., one in favour of the deceased fourth respondent and one in favour of the petitioner, in the event he succeeded in the present writ petition. Sri.S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the deceased fourth respondent was not an aggrieved party and that only the third respondent, being the auction purchaser who had a claim over the petitioner’s property pursuant to the sale, was the contesting respondent. The learned counsel argued that the lis was between the petitioner and the third respondent only and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition against the fourth respondent was of no consequence. Having give due consideration to the issue, this Court is unable to accept the above submission. The case of the petitioner was that his property had been brought to sale by the first respondent – Sale Officer as part and parcel of the properties belonging to the fourth respondent/judgment debtor. That being so, the legal heirs of the deceased fourth respondent would have a vital interest as to any adverse finding regarding the title over this property which may have negative future consequences in so far as they are concerned. The liability of the fourth respondent/judgment debtor stood settled by virtue of the sale of his properties which stood confirmed by the order in the O.A. Thus, any order by this Court reopening the liability of the deceased fourth respondent cannot be passed in the absence of his legal representatives. The legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent/judgment debtor are therefore proper and necessary parties to this writ petition. There cannot be any adjudication in the case behind their back. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of the writ petition against the fourth respondent must inevitably have its consequences. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in its entirety. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J February 11, 2011. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8314 of 2002 February 11, 2011