THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4693 of 2009 ORDER: This Court is rather faced with a piquant situation and credit for this squarely goes to the trial Court in committing mistakes one after the other. The respondents herein filed O.S.No.6 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are said to be deaf and dumb women. The record discloses that they were not represented by any individual, when the plaint was presented. All the same, the suit was numbered. During the pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 got married. Thereafter, they filed I.A.Nos.469 and 470 of 2009 under Order 32 Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit their respective husbands to represent them in the suit. The applications were opposed by the petitioners. Through a common order, dated 28.08.2009, the trial Court dismissed the applications. The petitioners filed I.A.No.448 of 2009 under Order 32 Rule 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to return the plaint on the ground that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not properly represented when the plaint was presented. The I.A. was dismissed, through order, dated 28.08.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The subject matter of this revision is only the order, dated 28.08.2009, passed in I.A.No.448 of 2009. However, it becomes necessary to deal with the matter in its entirety, lest respondent Nos.2 and 3 are subjected to prolonged litigation on account of their being deaf and dumb. It may be true that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not represented by any individual when the plaint was presented. All the same, the trial Court numbered the suit. It is thereafter that they came forward with the applications under Order 32 Rule 1 C.P.C. The trial Court ought to have been graceful and realistic in allowing the applications. However, it has chosen to be hyper- technical and dismissed the applications on the ground that such a step ought to have been taken at the initial stage. Though the orders passed in those two applications are not the subject matter of this revision, this Court cannot remain oblivious of such a blatant illegality. That would render the suit almost untenable and at the same time, does not lead into a situation of the plaint being returned or rejected. The result of the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.469 and 470 of 2009 must lead to the return of the plaint. In fact, that exactly is, the step, the petitioner wants the trial Court to take. Here again, the trial Court exhibited its lack of proper approach and refused to return the suit. The suit now hangs in a state of uncertainty. Neither it can be proceeded with, on the ground that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not properly represented, nor it can be returned because the trial Court refused to do so. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing that the orders, dated 28.08.2009, passed in I.A.No.469 and 470 of 2009 shall stand set aside and consequently the I.As. are allowed. The result would be that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are represented by their respective husbands and such a representation shall be treated as valid for all purposes. In view of this, I.A.No.448 of 2009 will become superfluous and it is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.07.2010 kdl