HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5348 OF 2011 DATE:09-12-2011 BETWEEN V.Gurunatham …Petitioner AND B.V.Ranga Rao and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5348 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the orders of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in entertaining the appeal and issuing notices to respondents in C.M.A.No.24 of 2009. The first respondent-party-in-person instituted a suit for declaration that the defendants-respondents 2 to 4 herein using the National Flag colours to their party flag as illegal, void, arbitrary and unjust and for permanent injunction restraining them from using the three coloured National Flag as their party flag. The trial Court rejected the plaint holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate as to how the suit attracts the provisions under Section 91(2) of C.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-first respondent herein carried the matter in appeal in which, by order dated 15.7.2009 the lower appellate Court issued notices to the respondents 2 to 4 herein. According to the petitioner, the lower appellate Court could not have numbered the appeal as did by the trial Court and ought to have heard the appeal on maintainability, but since the appeal is already numbered, notice was issued. In spite of service of notice, the first respondent did not choose to put up appearance. Considering the facts of the case, and as the suit itself was rejected at the threshold, the impugned docket order is set aside and the lower appellate Court is directed to decide first as to the aspect of maintainability of the suit and in case, if it comes to the conclusion that the suit as such is maintainable and ought not to have been rejected, then only issue notice to the respondents therein. The revision is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 09, 2011 Tsr.