THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 849 of 2010 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in I.A. No.157 of 2006 in O.S. No. 476 of 1990 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondents. The petitioner is Pragathinagar Plot Owners Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary G.V. Subbaiah. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.379 of 2007 in I.A. No.158 of 2006 in O.S. No. 476 of 1990 to implead it as party to the final decree proceedings contending, inter alia, that the members of their association, who belonged to middle income group, are in possession of 300 to 350 plots in an extent of Ac.66-67 cents in Survey Nos.575, 576, 578, 579 and 582 of Nagaram village, Dammaiguda Panchayat, Keesara Mandal. It is also their case that the property originally belonged to Athelly Balaiah and after the demise of Athelly Balaiah, his wife, sons and grand daughter G. Shakuntala made the land into house plots after obtaining layout from the Grampanchayat and they sold away the total extent plot wise to one Smt. Kamala and seven others in the years 1980 and 1981 through various registered sale deeds and thereafter the said Kamala and seven others sold their plots to the members of their association through their GPA holders M. Ram Mohan Rao and B. Visweshwar Rao under different registered sale deeds in the same year. Since then, the members of their association have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. It is also their case that the grand children of Athelly Balaiah filed a collusive suit for partition in O.S. No.476 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, R.R. District and in the said suit the wife, sons and daughters of A. Balaiah remained ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed on 06.02.1991. When the petitioner came to know about the same, they filed I.A. No.526 of 1994 in O.S. No. 476 of 1990 to implead them as parties in that partition suit and the said application was allowed permitting them to come on record as party in the final decree application. It is also their case that the respondents did not file any application for passing final decree from 1991 till 2006 and that the impugned orders are passed without hearing them. A reading of the impugned order clearly goes to show that the petitioner herein was not heard before passing the said orders. I have also gone through the affidavit filed by Smt. Shakuntala in I.A. No. 157 of 2006 in O.S. No.476 of 1990, seeking appointment of advocate- commissioner for effecting division of suit schedule property into three equal shares. In the said application also there is no whisper about the application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.526 of 1994, wherein the orders were passed permitting the petitioner to come on record as a party in the final decree application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the lower Court with a direction to hear both the parties and to pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24.03.2011 Nsr