NANDI JAYALALITHA Vs. PALEGAR RANGASWAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the respondent No.1 / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 7/7/2025 allowing I.A.No.261 of 2022 in O.S.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District filed by the plaintiff under Order I, Rule 10 and Sec. 151 of C.P.C. to implead the respondents No.2 and 3 in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit against the revision petitioner / sole defendant for the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule land and for consequential injunction. Pending the suit, I.A.No.261 of 2022 was filed with the prayer to implead the respondents No.2 and 3 as defendants No.2 and 3, whereas the consequential amendments sought are regarding cancellation of the rectification deeds dtd. 17/7/2013 bearing Nos.2027 / 2013 and 2028 / 2013 obtained by the respondent No.2 through the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda vide E.P.No.4 of 13 in O.S.No.22 of 2012. The contents of the affidavit state about the reasons for seeking cancellation of the rectification deeds and the consequential amendments read as below.

(3.) The petition was opposed by filing counter of the sole defendant / respondent No.1 / revision petitioner opposing the petition answering all the statements made with regard to the cancellation of the rectification deeds and further stating that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation; that the decree obtained in O.S.No.22 of 2012 is valid and binding on the parties to the suit; that the petitioner / plaintiff had forged a will to knock away the entire suit schedule property belonging to this respondent; that the plaintiff had knowledge of the decree in O.S.No.22 of 2012 but kept quite all these years; that the petition was filed only to drag on the matter and harass this respondent who is not a party to the rectification deeds; that the plaintiff is not entitled to cancellation of the rectification deeds; that the proposed amendment would cause injustice to this respondent; and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.