IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.1144 of 2011 Between: Kidambi Daruri Bharath & another …Petitioners And: The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1144 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17.01.2011 in IA No.339 of 2010 in OA No.673 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. State Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the 2nd respondent herein to get impleaded as 2nd respondent in the OA, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed OA No.673 of 2010 under section 87(1)(h) of the Act 30 of 1987 for a direction that they are the members of the Founder’s family of the subject temple. While the said OA was pending, the 2nd respondent herein filed petition seeking to implead him as 2nd respondent, who is elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees constituted for the temple and that he has developed the temple for the past several decades and he is proper and necessary party. The petitioners herein filed counter opposing the said application and contending that the petitioner has no locus standi and he is neither proper nor necessary party to the OA. 4. The learned Chairman of the Endowments Tribunal by impugned docket order dated 27.01.2011 allowed the said application and permitted the 2nd respondent herein to be impleaded as respondent, without prejudice to contest of both sides. The impugned order does not deal with the merits of the contentions of both sides and does not record any finding that the petitioner is a proper or necessary party to the OA supported by any reasons. The impleadment of the 2nd respondent herein is seriously opposed by the petitioners. In view of the same, the Tribunal ought to have dealt with the matter on its merits and passed reasoned order recording a finding supported by reasons. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned docket order is not sustainable and hence, it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Endowments Tribunal for consideration of the application IA No.339 of 2010 filed by the 2nd respondent herein, afresh and dispose of the same on its own merits in accordance with law and by a reasoned order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.07.2011 bss