IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF, TWO thousand AND TWENTY N MAY FIVE -iV.' >> Oo present JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Nos. 137fi anW Qp the honourable SRI CIVIL revision PFTiT|rn^ CIVIL REVfSION PFTiTir>|^, Petition under Article the Order dated 09.05.2024 2019 Pithapuram Between: 2024 NO: 1375 OF 227 of the Constitution of India passed in I.A. No. 86 of 2023 i Court of the Hon’ble aggrieved by in OS No. 14 of XII Addl. District Judge, on the file of the T Konapalli Venkata years. Software Trainee Maindal, E.G. District 2. Konapalli Venkata years. Asst. Professor, Mandal, E.G. District 3. Konapalli Venkata years. Housewife, Mandal, E.G. District, Kiran Kumar, S/o. Late Viswanadha D.No. 1-104, Amaravalli Andhra Pradesh-533 448. Reddy, Age 40 Village, U. Kothapallli Durga Devi, D/o. D.No. 1-104, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. Nagamani, W/o. D.No. 1-104, Andhra Pradesh-533 Late Viswanadha Reddy Amaravalli Village, U. Age 36 Kothapallli Late Viswanadha Reddy, Age 58 Amaravalli Village U. Kothapallli 448. ■•■Pefifionere/Petitioners/Plaintiff AND 1. Konapalli Veera Venkata ^tyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Appall Swamy Reddy, Age 58 years. Business, D.N0.1-93C, Amaravalli Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, EIG. District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. ; r:: Konajpalli Lakshmi Prasanna kuhiari, W/o. Bora Satish, Age 41 years. ■Housewife, D.No.43-3-23, Flat No.404, Sreeja Residency, Railway New Colony, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam, Aadhar No.6409 7353 5350 and Residing at (203), 30 Crosby St., Danbuiy Ct 06810. At present Konapalli Lakshmi Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Bora Satish, Age 41 years. Housewife, D.No. 1-104, Amaravalli Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. E.G 3. Puli Appayyamma, W/o. Venkata Fteddy, Age 65 years. Housewife! D.No.1-18/1, Amaravilli Village, D. Kothapalli Mandal, Kakinada District) Andhra Pradesh-533 448. A ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanced stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bd pleased to stay of all, further proceedings in O.S.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Honorable XII Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1380 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 09.05.2024 passed ipfl.A. No.86 of 2023 in OS No. 14 of 2019 on the file of the Court of-the Hon'ble XII Addl. District Judge; Pithapuram. i' T I- ■ 5'1' • Between: 1. Konapalli Venkata Kiran Kumar, S/o. Late Viswanadha Reddy, Age 40 I years. Software Trainee, D.No. 1-1G4, Amaravalli Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, E.G. District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. ' 2. Konapalli Venkata Durga Devi, D/o. Late Viswanadha Reddy, Age 36 years. .Asst. Professor, D.No. 1^104, Amaravalli Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, E.G. District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. 3. Konapalli Venkata Nagamani, W/o. Late Viswanadha Reddy, Age 58 years. Housewife, D.No.1-104, Amaravalli Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, E.G. District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. ■■■■.-e Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. Konapalli Veera Venkata Satyainarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Appala Swamy Reddy, Age 58 years. Business, D.No.1-93C, Amaravalli ^ Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, E=G. District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. 2. Konapalli Lakshmi Prasahha Kuftlari, W/o. Bora Satish, Age 41 years, j Housewife, D.No.43-3-23, Flat No.404, Sreeja Residency, Railway Newf Colony,Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, Aadhar No.6409 7353 5350 and Residing at (203), 30 Crosby St,, Danbury Ct 06810. At present Konapalli Lakshmi Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Bora Satish, Age 41 years. [ Housewife, D.No. 1-104, Amaravdiii Village, U. Kothapallli Mandal, E.G.* District, Andhra Pradesh-533 448. ^ ... Respondents/Respondentd/Defendants 3. Puli Appayyamma, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Age 65 years. Housewife D.No. 1-18/1, Amaraviili Village, U. Kothapalli Mandal, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh-533 44I Respondent/Proposed 3'^'' Defendant ’i. 'ii lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Honorable XII Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram. Counsel for the Petitioners in both the petitions : Sri M Radhakrishna Counsel for the Respondents in botffthe petitions: Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao The Court made the following: -i ■■'5: • :• : ■i 1 APHC010279132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1375 & 1380 of 2024 C.R.P.No.1375 of 2024 Between: Konapalli Venkata Kiran Kumar and Others AND Konapalli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): I.Mr.M.RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .Mr.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO ...PETITIONER{S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 i The Court made the following Common Order: The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, aggrieved by the orders in I.A.No.86 of 2023 and I.A.No.194 of 2024 both dated 09.05.2024 filed the present revision petitions. 2. I.A.No.86 of 2023 is filed under Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to add 3 respondent herein as defendant No.3 in tlje said suit. I.A.No.194 of 2024 is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to add the 3'"^ respondent herein as the 3 rd defendant and amend the cause title of the plaint. Though the learned District Judge passed separate orders, as the " parties are common and the facts that lead to filing of the said petitions are same, these two civil revision petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard Mr.M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of respondents 4. t 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submits that the 5. petitioners 1 & 2 and respondent No.2 are children of one Mr.Viswanadha petitioner is his wife. He submits that the father of rd . Reddy and the 3 Mr.Viswanadha Reddy, one Mr.Konapalli Appala Swamy Reddy had two sons ’ and one daughter and Mr.Viswanadha Reddy pre-deceased Mr.Appala 3 Swamy Reddy. He submits that Mr.Konapalli Appala Swamy Reddy died intestate and the ancestral properties devolved upon the surviving members and they are jointly enjoying the same. However, as th^ respondent i.e., the brother of Mr.Viswanadha Reddy through third parties was preventing the petitioners from cultivating the lands, O.S.No.62 of 2019 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram seeking an injunction was filed, but the same was dismissed for default. Be that as it may. 6. He submits that the petitioners filed O.S.No.14 of 2019 arraying the brother of Mr.Viswanadha Reddy as defendant No.1 for partition of the plaint schedule properties into eight equal and equitable shares and to allot three such contiguous shares to the plaintiffs and put them in possession of the same. He submits that the 1®' respondent / 1®* defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He submits that the 1®^ respondent / 1®^ defendant had taken a plea that Smt.Appayamma who is the elder daughter of Mr.Konapalli Appala Swamy Reddy was not impleaded in the suit, and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as all the sharers are made parties to the suit. 7. The learned counsel submits that in the above circumstances, the petitioners filed two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.86 of 2023 and 194 of 2024 seeking to implead Smt.P.Appayamma as third defendant in the suit and for amendment of the cause title consequent to the impleadment sought for. He submits that the said applications were opposed by the 1®* respondent and the U 4 9 learned District Judge, without considering the matter in a proper perspective dismissed the applications. The learned counsel submits that as one of the sharers was not added » 8. party, to cure the defect, an application was filed, however the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the same on the premise that two years after defendant, the petition to add as a St filing of the written statement of the 1 P.Appayamma was filed and it shows that the petitioners suppressed the facts. He submits thdt the learned Trial Court further went wrong in dismissing the petition seeking amendment of cause title on the premise that the petitioners did not file the petition quoting the Rule 28 of C.P.C., though an objection was raised by the counsel for the 1®* respondent during arguments, steps have been taken to amend the petition. In fact, the view of the learned Trial Court that adding of the. proposed party as third defendant may alter the nature of the suit and also shares of the parties, is erroneous, he adds. The learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court instead of dismissing the petitions on technical grounds, ought to have allowed the same technical defects* should not deprive the parties of their legal rights. He submits that the approach of the Court must be justice oriented in a given facts situation and not to dismiss the applications by pedantic approach. no as Placing reliance on the decisions in Srinivas Kumar Mowle v. and Kanakarathanammal v. 1 ‘ Chandrasekhar Mowle & Others ^ 2001 (3) ALD 670 (DB) 5 V.S.Loganatha Mudaliar & Another^, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders under challenge, that no prejudice would be caused to the contesting party. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 made submissions to sustain the impugned orders. Referring to the affidavit filed in 9. support of the I.As., in question , the learned counsel submits that even as per the statement of the petitioners, the proposed defendant No.3 is not a necessary party to the suit, but she was sought to be added as a proforma defendant. He submits that the present applications are lacking in details as to the purpose, why the petitioners seek to add the proposed defendant, more particularly when she is not a necessary party. In such circumstances, he contends that invocation of Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., is misconceived. He submits that there are no bona fides in the applications fifed by the petitioners and that in I.A.No.194 of 2024 merely amendment of the cause title was sought, without amending the cause of action, much less by mentioning the shares of the parties. He submits that the petitioners have not sought the consequential amendments as required under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice and in those circumstances, the learned Trial Court is right in dismissing the I.A.No.194 of 2024. He submits that the stand taken by the petitioners in the present applications is contrary to the stand taken before the Trial Court, that they are guilty of abuse of process of law and as such, they are not entitled for any reliefs. Placing reliance on the decision of a learned ^AIR 1965 see 271 6 Judge in Sogra Begum v. Ghousia Begum^, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Revision Petitions. 10. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions the point that arises for consideration by this Court is : Whether the orders under challenge are liable to be interfered with^by this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. At the out set, it may be appropriate to note that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is not in dispute that originally the petitioners herein filed the above referred suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties against the 1®* respondent / 1®* defendant, who is the paternal uncle of the petitioners 1 & 2 / plaintiffs. The 2"^^ respondent / 2 defendant is stated to be the sister of the petitioners 1 & 2. It is an undisputed fact that in the written statement a specific plea was taken about non-joinder t of one Smt.Appayamma, who is the sister of the 1®\respondent /1®* defendant / paternal aunt of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and stated to be a sharer, that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the said plea and to cure the defect, an application in I.A.No.86 of 2023 was filed, but the learned District Court taking an erroneous view, dismissed the application. 12. nd ^ 2017 (5) ALD 122 ■5^ 7 In the decision of Srinivas a Division Bench opined that the defect of the appeiiate stage. Referring Kanakarathanammal 15, the learned Division Bench Kumar Mowle (referred to supra) relied of Andhra Pradesh on by him, erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad, non-joinder of necessary party can be cured to the decision of the Hon even at ble Supreme Court in ' I (referred to supra), particularly Para Nos. 14 more inter alia opined as follows; and 14 15 While going through these two Clear that Supreme non-joinder of stage. In the not allow the Supreme Court after the nnfw not decide the an objectbn before the learned case which was before the Suorem= 'he appellate ' Court did even in the case as it could be as to the trial Court did request";; tra^p^'ra teS "hh"™ t after the case had been heSfd t h « I an objection was raised bv the ^ Present case as i * controversy, on the other hand dodge the J arrayed as p/^T^e'trVj and in this are before the moved an application for being during the pendency of the ^ learned Single Judge and as a n^atS of fif allc letters patent appeal the leaai ror^ f'rst Appeal itself Court. Therefore^^in ourvieTJh^S ffendanfro'fa.e be accepted and the plaintiff cannof h2 '®amed cour defendant No.5 had been oLn on the groun counsel cannot .SsPSfiSI 13. the light of the Division Bench 2023, thet too for stated in the affidavit filed i defendant is authoritative which is binding pronouncement of the Judgment on this Court, the dismissal Of the of I.A.No.86 of unsustainable reasons cannot be upheld. No doubt, i th4t the It is in support of the said I.A. proposed third onJy .pfoforma party / defendant. As to whether the proposed 8 defendant is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule property or only a proforma party is a matter to be considered by the Trial Court, depending upon the stand taken by the said party in the written statement. Be that may. as it i 14. Insofar as the application I.A.No.194 of 2024 is concerned, this Court see merit in the submissions made by the learned t respondent. But, as submitted by the learned counsel for the St counsel for the 1 petitioners, the prayer for amendment of cause title is consequential to the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. From no doubt that except a prayer to amend the small a perusal of the petition filed in the said I.A., cause title and full cause title of the plaint and add the proposed party as third defendant, the proposed amendment which is stated in the affidavit i.e. Para No.4-A was conspicuously missing. 15. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the decision in Sogra Begum referred to supra, wherein a learned Judge after referring of Civil Rules of Practice, inter alia, held that even a petition under Order 6 Rule 7 of C.P.C., must also contain the to Rule 28 consequential amendment as per the said Rule. The said decision though supports the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as pointed out earlier, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.194 of 2024, the proposed amendment stated. However, the same was specifically was not carried out in the petition, be it due to oversight or otherwise of the counsel representing the petitioners in the Trial Court. In normal circumstances, the application should have been returned for 9 rectification of the defect, but the learned District Judge the application and then ultimately dismissed the petition is filed. The learned Judge has also taken proposed 3'"^ defendant, the nature of the suit would be altered tenable. Though, the view taken by it with reference to amendment in the light of the above referred decision, may not be found fault with, but as pointed by the learned counsel for the defects should not deprive the parties of their legal rights. proceeded to decide same on the premise that no a view that by adding the which is not the consequential petitioners, the technical 16. In.Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the rules ,• of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself (See also: 2006 (1) SCC 46). 17. Taking the above said aspects into consideration^ this Court is of the view that the petitioners may be afforded an opportunity to file a fresh application with regard to the amendments sought for by them. The point is answered accordingly. 18. For the aforegoing reasons, the order dated 09.05.2024 in I.A.No.86 of 2023 is set aside and the C.R.P.No.1380 of 2024 is allowed. Insofar as C.R.P.No.1375 of 2024 is concerned, dismissal of I.A.No.194 of 2024 technical grounds is not tenable and therefore the order is set aside. Liberty is on v/ '' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 10 granted for making fresh application with regard to the amendments sought for and if the petitioners adopt such course of action, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same, without reference to the order in I.A.No.194 of 2024. 19. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous stand closed. applications, if any, shall SD/- A VENU GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /^SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The XII Additional District Judge 2. The Section Officer, VR Section 2. One CC to Sri. M Pithapuram, East Godavari District. > High Court of Andhra Pradesh Radhakrishna Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Kotha Naga Surya Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies stu I S HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos. 1375 and 1380 of 2024 disposing the civil revision petition