PADMAJA P RAO Vs. M. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in I.A.No. 1045 of 2007 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking to add her as defendant No.11 in O.S. No. 35 of 1987 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Medhcal, approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The suit was filed originally to declare the gift settlement deed dated 30.04.1983 registered as document No. 1836/1983 alleged to have been executed by Sri Mekala Dasarath in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of Acs.6.10 guntas of land in survey No. 7 of Raj Bollaram Village, Medchal Mandal, as null and void. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sri Dasarath. The suit was decreed on 29.12.1994. Challenging the said judgment and decree, A.S.No. 29 of 1995 was filed before the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar by the defendants. The Appeal came to be allowed on 12.10.1998 remanding the suit to the learned Junior Civil Judge with a direction to provide an opportunity to both sides including the 4th respondent who was added as a party in the Appeal to lead evidence afresh, if any by framing all issues in respect of passing of the decree in O.S.No. 287 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner, who claims to have acquired the property through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1995, having come to know the proceedings, filed the present Application to add her as party respondent. That I.A. was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, mainly on the premise that the scope of order in the Appeal being limited, the Court cannot go beyond the said order. Hence, the present Revision.

(3.) This Revision was filed in 2008. It may be noted that even at the time of filing the C.R.P., Respondent No.1 Plaintiff No. 1 died, and Respondents 2 and 3 were the original plaintiffs. Thereafter, Respondents 4 and 5 died and their legal representatives were already on record. Respondent No.13 is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 287 of 1988 which was referred to in A.S.No. 29 of 1995. The record discloses that Respondents 2 and 3 were served, on behalf of Respondent No.13, a counsel was appearing and on behalf of Respondent 9, one Sri T.Natraj, Advocate filed vakalat. Respondents 1, 4 and 5 died. Respondents 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 were served through paper publication which was filed vide USR No. 11107 of 2020.