H APHC010302782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ac-0? TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1396 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool passed in I.A.No.1/2025 in O.S.No. 7/2016 dated 08.05.2025. Between; G. Rama Krishna, W/o. Golla Siddaiah, Aged about 28 years, resident of Plot no. 87-1374-3/89, BTR Nagar, Nandikotkur Road, Kurnool. ...Petitioners/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Golla Siddaiah, S/o. Late Golla Nadipi Sanjanna @ Buddanna, Aged about 50 years, 2. Golla Siva Krishna, S/o. Golla Siddaiah, Aged about 27 years, 3. Golla Hari Krishna, S/o. Golla Siddaiah, Aged about 23 years. Respondents 1 to 3 are R/o, C/o Good Shepherd School Near Nandyal Check Post, Kurnool. 4. U. Gangamma, W/o. Uppari Sunkanna, Aged about 50 years, 5. G. Yella Reddy, (Died), 6. G. Harichandra Reddy, S/o. late G. Yella Reddy, Aged about 30 7. G. Tulasi, S/o. Late G. Yella Reddy Aged about 25 years. years. 8. G. Manjula, S/o. Late G. Yella Reddy, Aged about 50 years. Respondents 4 to 8 are R/o Basavapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal Kurnool. 9. The Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. 10. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and High-ways, Ministry of Road and Transport, New Delhi. 11. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highways Act, 1956 Kurnool. 12. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool. .. .Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 13. G Siva Shankar Reddy, S/o Late G. Yella Reddy, Aged 30 years, R/o Basavapuram Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kunool. (R9 to R12 respondents is not necessary party) ...Respondent/Proposed Party/Defendant No.13 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of 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 OS.No.7/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kurnool. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SMT. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 & 7 to 13: — The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010302782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the twelfth day of August, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1396 of 2025 Between: G.Rama Krishna ...Petitioner and Golla Siddaiah and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1.G. Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondents: I.Popuri. Lakshmi Priyanvita The Court made the following: 2 BSBJ C.R.P.No.l396of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 08.05.2025, dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Court'of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Order I, Rule 10 and Rules 28 & 29 of the Civil Rules of Practice to permit the petitioner / plaintiff to implead the proposed party as defendant No. 13 in the above suit and to carry out necessary consequential amendments to the plaint as follows; Proposed party to be added as defendant No.13: G.Siva Shankar Reddy S/o G. Yella Reddy, aged 45 years, R/o Basavapuram village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. Consequential amendment to be carried out in the plaint: 1) Add name of the proposed party as defendant No.13 in small and long cause title in the plaint. 2) To add the word “& 13” after the word “defendant Nos 6 to 8” wherever it is mentioned in the plaint pleadings. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows; The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of his 1/4^*^ share in the plaint schedule properties and for cancellation of sale deed, dated th 15.04.1999, executed by the 1®' defendant in favour of the 4 defendant and G.Venkamma with regard to item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. The suit stood posted to 02.01.2025 for cross-examination of DW1. The respondent No.5 / defendant filed 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.l396of 2025 his written statement alleging that his wife / Venkamma died leaving behind her the defendants 5 to 8 and the proposed party / G. Siva Shankar Reddy as her legal heirs. While preparing for cross-examination of DW1, the petitioner came to know that G. Siva Shankar Reddy was not made as party to the suit. Further, the respondent No.6 / defendant filed document showing that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property stands in the name of G. Siva Shankar Reddy. As such, G. Siva Shankar Reddy is a necessary and proper party to the suit. As such, he is advised by his counsel to implead the proposed party and to carry out consequential amendmentsin the plaint. i 3. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents No.6 & 8, it was stated as follows: Though the defendants No.6, 7 & 8 pleaded in the written statement that the property is in the name of G. Siva Shankar Reddy and an issue was framed in that regard, the petitioner / plaintiff kept quiet for the last eight (8) years. Having knowledge of the possession of the property in the name of the proposed party, the petitioner did not intentionally add him as party after the death of the defendant No.5. The petitioner filed this petition with a mala fide intention to grab the property of the defendants and prolong the suit by filing petition after petition. If the proposed party is added as a party to the suit proceedings, the nature of the suit will be changed as no relief is claimed against the proposed party. There are no merits and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, completely agreeing with the argument of the contesting respondents, the trial Court dismissed 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.l396of2025 the petition observing that if the proposed amendment is permitted, the nature of the suit would be changed and that further the petitioner had not sought any relief against the proposed party. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner / plaintiff preferred this revision petition mainly contending that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application and it ought to have allowed the application. 5. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the reasons stated in the affidavit to implead the proposed party. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla in Jit Singh Vs. Kirpal Singh and Ors. ^, wherein it was held at paragraph No. 15 as follows; “15. Having perused aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, it can be safely inferred that though party to the litigation can file application, seeking therein impleadment and deletion of the party arrayed as plaintiff or defendant but provision contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC also casts duty upon the court to ensure impleadment and deletion of the party, which may or may not be necessary for adjudication of the case. No doubt, in the case at hand, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC came to be filed by the respondents-plaintiffs after recording of the 1 MANU/HP/0714/2023 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.l396of 2025 evidence, but before pronouncement of the judgment. Since respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they are entitled to property of the deceased Harnam Singh being his LRs. coupled with the fact that objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary party had come on record with the filing of written statement, it was duty of the court to invoke provisions contained under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to order impleadment of all the LRs. of the deceased Harnam Singh. No doubt, provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be permitted to be invoked for filling up lacuna, if any, but definitely such provision is required to be invoked by the court to ensure that there is no multiplicity of litigation subsequently on account of non-impleadment of the party, which is necessary for adjudication of the controversy before it.” i Similarly, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted as in their counter and supported the impugned order requesting not to interfere with the order as there is no legal error or irregularity. 7. Since the present matter arises out of a suit for partition, all necessary parties can be directed to be impleaded at any stage before passing the final decree. Of course, there is delay in filing the petition to implead the proposed party, though the same was brought to the notice of the plaintiff when the written statement was filed. After the death of G.Venkamma, all her legal representatives, having succeeded right in the property left by her become necessary parties in a suit filed against her property. It is incorrect to state that the nature of the suit would be changed as the suit 8. BSB,J C.R.P.No.1396 of 2025 continues to be for partition. It is also incorrect to dismiss the petition on the ground that no relief was sought against the proposed party. In the consequential amendments sought in the petition, after ‘defendants No.6 to 8’, ‘and No. 13’ is to be added. Therefore, the relief so far claimed against defendants No.6 to 8 would be sought against defendant No. 13 as well. The only laches on the part of the petitioner is the delay. Under such circumstances, by imposing certain terms while granting the relief, the petition could have been allowed by the trial Court. Since the trial Court failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction, the impugned order needs to be interfered with in the revision. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 08.05.2025, passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2016 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay the contesting respondents Rs.2,000/- within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. One CC to SRI. G. SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SMT. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. Chp NM HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1396 OF 2025 ^ 18 AUG 2025 i m «o SectigitXCy ALLOWING THE CRP