D Home Projects Vs K. Subhashini

D HOME PROJECTS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, TUMU RAM MOHAN S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 501, BELLA CASA APARTMENT, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, YENDADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530045.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

K SUBHASHINI, W/O. K. KRISHNA MURTHY, R/O. D. NO. 7-44-145/1, MAIN ROAD, THAGARAPUVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶16

K KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. LINGAYYA, R/O. D. NO. 7-44-145/1, MAIN ROAD, THAGARAPUVALASA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶17

RAPETI VASUNDHARA, W/O. PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. PLAT NO. 47, D. NO. 1-54-7, SECTOR - I, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -17.

¶18

ROKKAM RENUKA DEVI, W/O. VENKATESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 715-36-1, NOWROJI ROAD, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the orders dated 02-09-2024 in lA.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No.144 of 2018 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Visakhapatnam, the petitioner begs to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in A.S No. 144 of 2018 on the file of on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Visakhapatnam

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.V V SATISH

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

None appeared for the respondents.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent filed O.S.No.35 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, against the revision petitioner and respondents 1, 2 and 4 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the plaint “A” and “B” schedule properties.

¶32

Initially, the suit was filed against Smt. Daneti Kalavathi, W/o Late Mukunda Rao. Pending the suit, the 1^st defendant died, and her legal representative was brought on record as the 5^th defendant. The plaintiff added the revision petition as the 2^nd defendant to the suit vide order dated 27.02.2017 in I.A.No.44 of 2016. Thereafter, the defendants 3 and 4 were added by an order dated 08.08.2017 in I.A.No.19 of 2017. The defendants 3

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

and 4 contested the suit. The 2^nd defendant was set ex parte. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 05.03.2018.

¶35

Defendants 3 and 4 filed A.S.No.144 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2006. In the appeal, the revision petitioner was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent in the appeal/the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.81 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC to transpose him as the 3^rd appellant in the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded about the purchase of the property, etc.,. The appellate Court, by an order dated 02.09.2024, dismissed the application.

¶37

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the appeal, and hence, the appellate Court should have transposed the revision petitioner as the 3^rd appellant to the appeal. He would further contend that the appellate Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

¶38

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority¹ .

¶39

9. The point for consideration is:

¶40

Whether the order dated 02.09.2024 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in A.S.No.144 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam, suffers from any illegality warranting interference?

¶41

The facts referred to supra need no reiteration. The revision petitioner was arrayed as the 2^nd defendant in O.S.No.35 of 2006 and was set ex parte.

¶42

1 (2004) 10 SCC 745

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

The revision petitioner did not contest the suit. Defendants 3 and 4 contested the suit. Thereafter, the trial Court decreed the suit on 05.03.2018.

¶45

Defendants 3 and 4 filed a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC. The defendants 3 and 4, having suffered a decree, filed an appeal. The 3^rd defendant, in the suit, who was arrayed as the 2^nd respondent in the appeal filed by defendants 3 and 4, if aggrieved by the decree in the suit, should have filed a separate appeal. The prayer in the I.A. to transpose as the 3^rd appellant is misconceived.

¶46

If, according to the revision petitioner, no notice was served in the suit, the revision petitioner, the 2^nd defendant in the suit, could have taken appropriate steps. In the appeal filed by the defendants 3 and 4, the revision petitioner cannot be transposed as the 3^rd appellant. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶47

Since the appellate Court has considered all these aspects and passed a reasoned order, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 02.09.2024 in I.A.No.81 of 2022 in A.S.No.144 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶48