IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.NO : 1492,1493 & 1494 OF 2010 Between: Gandhinagar Trust rep. by its Secretary, Yoganand (died) and another. ..... PETITIONER AND Sattur Narsimhulu and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.NO : 1492,1493 & 1494 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: As these three Civil Revision Petitions are inter-related with each other, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. Gandhi Nagar Trust, Badepally, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, represented by its Secretary, Yoganand and the convener, U.Sugnanam, initially filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, for a declaration that the acts of the defendants are illegal and the defendants are in no way concerned with the Trust at Jadcherla and for a consequential declaration that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the Secretary and convener, respectively, of the Gandhinagar Trust. In the said suit, an application in I.A.No.169 of 2001 was filed for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The learned Junior Civil Judge passed a detailed order dated 09-07-2001 stating that the temporary injunction cannot be granted, and accordingly dismissed the application. Subsequently, it appears that the suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar. 3. It appears the said Yoganand, who instituted the suit in his capacity as Secretary of the Gandhinagar Trust, died, as such, the 2nd plaintiff, U.Sugunanam, filed three applications in I.A.Nos.143, 166 and 167 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006, to implead the respondent No.10, B.Ashok Kumar as 3rd plaintiff in the suit, to permit the 2nd plaintiff to amend the cause title of the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2006 incorporating the name of the 10th respondent as 3rd plaintiff to represent Gandhinagar Trust as Secretary in place of the deceased Yoganand and also to receive the documents for the purpose of deciding the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application was opposed by the defendants i.e. respondents herein stating that the suit was instituted by Yoganand in his capacity as Secretary and the relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration that Yoganand and Sugnanam (plaintiffs) are the Secretary and Convener of the Gandhinagar Trust and when once Yoganand died, the question of bringing Ashok Kumar as Secretary does not arise. 4. The trial Court after considering the submissions, passed an order dated 04-02-2010 in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 stating that the suit is for a declaration that Yoganand and Sugnanam are Secretary and Convener of the Gandhinagar Trust and when once Yoganand died, the question of bringing Ashok Kumar as Secretary of the Trust does not arise and accordingly, dismissed the application. Consequently, the other two applications were also dismissed. Questioning these three orders in I.A.Nos.143, 166 and 167 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006, these three revision petitions are filed by Sugnanam i.e. the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the orders under revision. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and also looking at the prayer of the plaint in O.S.No.6 of 2006, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the applications. Once the relief sought for is for declaration that Yoganand is the Secretary and when he is no more, it is not known as to how and when Ashok Kumar has become the Secretary. Hence, I see no merits in these revision petitions, and are thus dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to file application seeking amendment of the plaint before the trial Court. It is needless to observe that it is always left open to the petitioners to file any application seeking amendment etc. before the trial Court, if the law permits. No costs. ___________________ 13th August 2010 KVR