Mathamasetti Satyavathi Bramarambha v. Varada Kamakshi [Died]

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4831 of 2011 ORDER:

Impugning the legality and correctness of the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram dated 13.09.2011 in I.A.No.267 of 2011 in A.T.C.No.25 of 1999 filed by the revision petitioners, who are respondents 2 to 4 among seven (7) respondents of the said A.T.C. and of whom respondents 2 to 6 are no other than some of the landlords as among respondents 1 to 7, respondent No.1 is the tenant and respondent No.7 is the son-cum-legal representative of the tenant, when the matter is at the stage of arguments, sought for transposing from respondents to petitioners since ended in dismissal saying no merits and at the fag end filed with intend to put spokes for disposal.

2.

The contentions in the grounds of revision vis-à-vis the oral submissions in maintaining the revision are that the lower Court ought to have been allowed the application for transposing from the co-respondents to the petitioners, as they are some of the persons among the landlords in seeking eviction against the tenant and for originally they did not come forward to join as co-petitioners, shown as proforma respondents.

3.

Whereas, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision respondents, particularly respondent No.6 (respondent No.7 in A.T.C) that there are no grounds to entertain the revision for the order passed on merits is with no illegality or irregularity, much less to the prejudice of the petitioners, who are already on record and not a case of non-joinder of necessary parties even to exercise suomoto powers by the Court under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and hence to dismiss the revision petition.

4. Heard and perused the material on record. 5.

The fact that the proposed petitioners, who are respondents 2 to 4 among respondents 2 to 6, the co-sharers or co-owners with petitioners 1 and 2 of A.T.C. since the land lady by name, Varada Kamakshi died and Varada Satyarajan was impleaded as petitioner No.2 by saying the other legal heirs from non-cooperation as corespondents. Once they want to come on record interse, there could be no objection for the tenant as they are already on record if the Tenancy Court what it determines is the tenant is liable to be evicted or not. Even Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. enables the Court

to subserve the ends of justice to implead any party, where if it necessary or even to transpose among them. The lower Court ought to have allowed the application there from for no interse conflict of interest between the legal representatives of the deceased land lady.

6.

Having regard to the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the lower Court dated 13.09.2011 in I.A.No.267 of 2011 in A.T.C.No.25 of 1999 and restored the application to the file of the lower Court to dispose of the same afresh on merits to transpose, unless there is shown any conflict of interest interse between the so called landlords. It is needless to say, the tenancy matter is of the year 1999, the lower Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. No costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:10-06-2016 pab