ANTHATI KONDAL Vs. N LAXMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is preferred by the petitioner in I.A.No.1067 of 2014 moved in O.S.No.1546 of 2006 seeking impleadment as Defendant No.22 to the suit. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs, while the other respondents are either the defendants or those impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased parties. Their presence or, for that matter, their absence makes no difference for our inquiry.

(2.) I .A.No.1067 of 2014 moved by the present petitioner has not been opposed by the plaintiffs, nor the other defendants did oppose that. Defendant No.9 claims to be the bona fide purchaser of a part of the land forming part of the suit schedule property, with which piece of land the present petitioner is concerned. It is pointed out that the father of the petitioner herein has been impleaded to the suit. It is asserted by the petitioner that no summons were served on him, but however, service is effected by taking out publication by way of substituted service. In para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1067 of 2014, the petitioner has asserted as under: I further submit that no summons were served upon my father during his lifetime. In fact, the Publication was made in a News paper which has no circulation. My father had no knowledge about the pendency of the above suit. My father died on 10 - 11 -2010 leaving behind myself being son and my mother, namely Smt. A. Anjamma as his legal heirs and successors in interest.

(3.) THEREAFTER , usual averments as to how the petitioner has got a right in the suit schedule property has been spelt out.