The High Court · 2025

1. Defence Estate Officer (DEO), Ministry of Defence, Government of lndia, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Circle, S.P. Road, Secunderabad 500 003. 2. Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandalf Beside Fire Station, S.P Road, Secunderabad 500 003

3. All the Concerned lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants Amit Chauhan, S/o Late Chandradev Singh @ Shyam Singh, Age. 43 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 9-3-121h22, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad 500025. ...AppellanUAppellanUPlaintiff AND

1. Defence Estate Officer (DEO), Ministry of Defence, Government of lndia, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Circle, S.P. Road, Secunderabad 500 003. 2. Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandalf Beside Fire Stataon, S.P.Road, Secunderabad 500 003

3. All the Concerned ...Respondents/Respondents 4. Smt. Kumudini Chauhan, W/o Late Chandradev Singh @ Shyam Singh, Age:70 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o, 9-3-121/122, Regimenlal Baza(, Secunderabad 500025

5. Smt. Ambi(a Thakur, D/o Late Chandradev Singh @ Shyam Singh, W/o Satyajeet {iingh Thakur. Age.42 years. Occ: Housewife, R/o. Hari Clinic, Bilgaiyan \A/ard, Bina Station, Sagar-470'l 13, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents/Proposed Respondents Petition unoer Order I Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondents No.4 and 5 as Respondents in SA. No 265 of2C25 Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Shiv Shankar Tiwar, counsel representing Smt. G. Rama Manoja Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K. Mohan The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT TI{E HONOUITATJLE SMT. JUSTICI' RENUKA YARA I.A.No.2 <tl'21125 in /and SECOND APPEAL No.265 of 2025 (]O iVI NION .I U I)C IV I.,N'I': llcard Sri Shiv Shankar'Iiivari. leamed counsel rcpresenting Smt. G. Ranra Manoja, learned counsel fbr thc appellant and Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel for rcsl-rondcnt No.l. who appeared virtually.

1. l his Sccond Appeal is preferred by the appellant - plaintill aggrieved bv the judgment ancl decrec dated 07.02.2025 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2024 by the learned I Additional ('hic{- .ludqc, C'it1, Civil f'ourt at Secunderabad, confirrning thc judgrlent uncl clccrcc clatcd 2-l.ll.20ll passed in O.S.No. 1062 of 2022 b1 the I Junior Civil .ludge. City Civil Coufi, Secunderabad. l. 'l'hc backllround lacts of thc case are that the suit in O.S.No. 1062 ol 20ll rs filed to declarc thc'appe llant herein as legal heir ol'thc deceased Chandradev Singh alias Shyanr Singh, has bcen dismisscd as thc name of Late Chandradev Singh hal'ing alias naurL' \v.ts not plcaded belble the I rial Cour-t. In the First Appeal, saicl error was rectilled b1' producing documentary evidence to show that [.ate- Chandradt'r' Singh had irlias narre Shyam Singh. However, the appeal \\'ats \ i -"'1 ) dismissed on a dil'fcrent ground i.e. all the lcgal heirs ol I-atc ('handradev Singh alias Shyam Singh are not arrayed as parties. T'he rvii-e arrd daughter of late Chandradev Singh alias Shyanr Singh were not shown as partids and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The current Second Appeal rvas prelerred challenging both the judgments. Alone with the Second Appeal, the appcllant lilcd l.:\.No.2 of ]015 to inrplc-ad thc r.r'ile and daughter of latc Chandradcv Singh .rlias Shyam Singh as parties to the aPpcirl

4. In Second Appeal. learned counsel lbr the appcllant sought permission ol' this Court to withdrarv the present Second Appeal with libertl to lile a fresh suit by arraying all the lcgal heirs ol'late Chanclradc'r, Singh alias Shr im Sineh.

5. 'I'he learned counsel for rc'spondent No. I reporled lhat thc appellant intends to file a tiesh suit rrs Second Appeal does not have the scopc of inrpleading nerv pafties as only substantial questions of'Iarv can be dealt with

6. lhe appellart has raised thc follou,ing substantial qLresti()ns of law: a. Whether it was proper for the lower appellate couft to dismiss the suit lor non-joinder of necessary parties. without giving arr opportunity to cure the delect'.' b. Whether the lor.ver appellate court acted rvithin its .jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal on a different finding tiont that olthe trial court with regard to the non-.ioinder of'other lamily nrr'nrbers as partics to the suit? / 3 l. -['he abovc substantial questions ol lau, cannot be considered in view ol the tinding ol- the Firsi Appellatc Coufi that a suil lor declaration of legal heirs is not rnaintainable nhcn all thc legal hcirs are nol amayed as pafiies.to the suit. [n any case. the appellant intends to u'ithdra$' the prcsent Second Appeal.

8. As the learned counsel lbr thc appellant appeared virtually, he is not in a position to make endorsemcnt on thc case bundle to the effect of withdrawal. Flor.rcver, in vierv ol'thc rc(luest rnacle, the appellant is pcrmitted to withdraw. the Second Appeat.

9. [n the result, I.A.No.] o1' l0l-5 is disrnissed and the Second Appeal is disnrissecl as u.ithdrar.r,n granting libcfty to the appellant to pursue any other re metlics available . No order a:i to costs. As a sequel thercto, rniscellancous petitions, if any, pending in this petition I shall stantl c losed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRARa SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad 2. The I JuniorCivit Juooe, at City Crif Corrt, S"lriieraOaa. 3 One CC to Smt. G R"ama lr/ano;a, eOr".lt" fOi;Utf - 4 One CC to Sri K. Mohan. Advocate IOpUCi-'- 5. Two CD Copies ,{r lfn' Karn/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:06 t1012025 COMMON JUDGMENT l.A.No.2 of 2025 in/and SA.No.265 ot 2025 {t{i 5 t4 14 1 2 I oct 2s25 \ 3n7.1r r-.( \ - $, LA.No.2 of 2025 lS DISMISSED AND SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN 1 lr\ ?\