APHC010394642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the 10th day of March Two thousand and twenty five. Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2051 of 2024 Between: K.Seshamma ...Petitioner AND K.Sreeramulu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy Counsel for the respondent(s): 1. Varun Byreddy The Court made the following Order: This petition is filed by 4th defendant/5th respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.03.2024 allowing I.A.No.455 of 2023 in O.S.No.246 of 2016 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool filed under Order I, rule 10 and section 151 of CPC to implead the following persons as defendants No.7 and 8 in the suit and direct 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 the 1st respondent/plaintiff to make necessary and consequential amendments in the plaint. Proposed parties to be added as defendants Nos.7 and 8:- 1.Boya Komala, D/o late Venkata Swamy, aged 22 years, Hindu, (proposed D7) 2.Boya Venkata Ramana, S/o late Venkata swamy, aged 18 years, Hindu, (proposed D8) 2. The suit was filed for partition of the properties amongst the legal representatives of late Pedda Nagaiah and late Chinna Nagaiah without impleading the legal representatives of the other co-owner by name Smt.Nagalakshmi who is the sister of the 5th defendant and the daughter of Chinna Nagaiah and they are now proposed to be added as the parties. 3. The 3rd respondent /2nd defendant filed the counter opposing the petition contending that the averments in the affidavit are false and that the petition is not maintainable as the suit got abated since the legal representatives were not made as parties. 4. The 5th respondent/4th defendant also filed counter opposing the petition stating that the evidence of PW1 had already been filed and that the petitioner was sailing with the plaintiff and filed the petition unnecessarily. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition as they are necessary parties and the relief in the suit cannot be 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 refused on technical ground. Since the 4th defendant contended that the plaintiff is dominus litis in choosing the parties, the petition does not lie by placing reliance on the decision reported in Ainala Kumar & Others Vs.Pulakanti Narsi Reddy & Others1, the trial Court distinguished its application to the present case stating that the decision relates to a suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court observed that though the proposed parties had received notice, they remained exparte. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the 4th defendant filed this petition mainly contending that the trial Court failed to consider the petition in correct perspective in the light of the settled principles of law; that the 5th defendant had no locus standi to file the petition; that the plaintiff is dominus litis and that without impleading the proposed parties as respondents to the petition and without ordering notice to the proposed respondents, the trial Court erroneously allowed the petition. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner canvassed in the arguments the grounds taken in the revision. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner/5th defendant supported the order of the trial Court and further submitted that mere technical formalities shall not come in the way of dispensation of justice. 1 2008(3) ALD 686, 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 9. Though the notices were served on the 2nd respondent/plaintiff and the 4th respondent, they have not turned up. 10. The notices to the 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents were returned unserved. Since their notices were sent to the addresses as given before the trial Court, further notices are dispensed with in view of the fact that they did not oppose the petition before the trial Court. 11. The order of the trial Court shows that notices were served on the proposed parties, however the revision petitioner disputes the same. It is clear from the record that the proposed parties were not shown as the respondents in the petition. They ought to have been made as the respondents, however their names were indicated in the petition with all details of their identity. It is a procedural error. Even a Court can suomotu direct the plaintiff to add necessary parties. Since it is suit for partition which was filed in the year 2016 and the proposed parties are admittedly the children of one of the co-sharer with the parties to the suit, it is beyond doubt that they are necessary parties. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition merely on the technical grounds taken by the revision petitioner. If at all the proposed parties are aggrieved by the order, they are at liberty to raise their objection before the trial Court after their addition. 12. Accordingly, giving such liberty to the proposed parties, the civil revision petition is disposed of. 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 10.03.2025 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 88 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.R.P No.2051 of 2024 Date: 10.03.2025 7 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2051 of 2024 GRL