HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.829 of 2008 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in I.A.No.243 of 2007 in O.S.No.113 of 2004 dated 27.11.2007. I.A.No.243 of 2007 is an application filed by the first respondent herein, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking to be impleaded as the third defendant in the suit for effective adjudication of the matter, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The petitioner-plaintiff filed his counter affidavit contending that the first respondent (petitioner in the I.A.) was one Sri Chunchu Rajesham; the petitioner-plaintiff had earlier filed a petition to summon the said Sri Chunchu Rajesham to submit his version/claim over the suit land; on 29.03.2005 the said Sri Chunchu Rajesham was present before the Court; Sri K.R.K. Rao, the advocate of Sri Chunchu Rajesham, offered to file his Vakalath on his behalf; the matter was posted for reply on 18.04.2005, 03.05.2005, and 05.07.2005; I.A.No. 263 of 2004 was dismissed on 26.07.2005 on the ground that no counter was filed; and the present I.A. was, therefore, misconceived. The petitioner-plaintiff further stated that Sri Chunchu Rajesham had knowledge of construction of the house over the suit schedule property; he had failed to submit his version/claim by filing counter in I.A.No. 263 of 2004; and his attempt now to come on record was only to drag on proceedings. Whatever may be the merits of the contentions urged before this Court, it must be noted that the Court below has not dealt with the petitioner-plaintiff’s contention that failure of Sri Chunchu Rajesham (first respondent) to submit his claim earlier would disentitle him from seeking to implead himself as the third defendant in the Suit. The Court below ought to have examined the consequences of the first respondent’s failure to submit his claim in reply to the petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to summon him in I.A.No. 263 of 2004. The order of the Court below suffers from a patent illegality which necessitates correction in revision proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded back for its consideration afresh. The Learned Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli shall deal with all the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed in the said I.A., hear both parties, and pass orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd