The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 9 ,;.d ffi"Jn AND 1 . l\Iaganti Ramakrishna Rao @ Ramakrishna, s/o Raghaver dra rao, aged about 35 years, Occ: business R/o Railway station an ra Near Raja Rajeshwara ricr: mill, Bellampally mancherial district. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DEF ENDANT No.2

2. Masa Venkata liwamy, S/o Chinnulu, aged-about 38 years, Ocr:: political leader r/o Asho < Nagar village, Tandur Mandal Mancherial distr ict ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Respondent No. 2 not necessary party lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums,tances stated in the affidavit filed ir, support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to su.,spend the order dak-'d 11-07-2024 in lA No. 760 of 2024 in OS t,lo. 13 ol 2014 orf the file of Junior C vil Judge at Bellampally Mancherial District. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy The Court made the f cllowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2617 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 11.07 .2024, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bellampatli in I.A.No.760 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2024, whereunder the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC praying the Court to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to measure the physical features and localize the suit schedule propefty for making survey and determination of boundaries and extent of suit schedule property with the assistance of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Mancherial or Mandal Surveyor, Bellampally, was allowed.

2. Heard Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The revision petitroners are plaintiff Nos.2 to 9 and respondent No.1 is defendant No.2 in the suit

4. The suit was originally filed by one Chanda Manku Bai for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the 2 LNA, J CRP.rto.26I7 of 2024 defendants During the pendency of the suit, the si Lid Chanda Manku Ba expired and her legal heirs, who are the petitioners herein, are brought on record, in order dated 03. )6.2020 in l.A.No.70 r,'2019.

5. Whe.r the matter stood thus, defendant l,.lo.2 filed application i.A.No.760 of ZO24 for appointmenl. of Advocate_ Commissio"rel under Order XXVI Rule 9 CpC seeking r he relief as ) referrcd h,:reinbefore. In the said application, th,: revision petitioners lled counter and resisted the application. H(,wever, the trial Court vide impugned order allowed the appli;ation and appointed lyivocate-Commissioner for survey of the suit schedule propefty. A;;ailing the same, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

6. Learr:d counsel for the revision petitioners conrended that during the l),rndency of the suit, the plaintiff u,ho orig nally filed the suit expired and her legal heirs were brought >n record, however, wLthout considering the said fact, respondent No.1 hled an applicati:n arraying the deceased plaintiff as resporrdent No.l and tl.re t'ial Courl without considering the said aspect, I t \ \ I 3 LNA, J CRP,No.2617 of2024 mechanically allowed the application, therefore, on this sole ground, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that inadvertently, I.A.No.760 of 2024 was filed arraying the deceased Chanda Manku Bai as respondent No.1, without noticing the fact of bringing her legal heirs on record and therefore, he prayed this Couft to remand the matter to the trial Court for proper adjudication

8. Filing of an application by respondent No. t herein arraying the deceased original plaintiff-Chanda Manku Bai as one of the parties, without arraying her legal heirs who were brought on record as plaintiffs in the suit on her death, is void ab initio and per se irregular. However, the trial Court failed to notice and consider the said aspect and mechanically allowed the application against the deceased-plaintiff. As such, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the Revision Petition and deems it just and appropriate and also ends of justice would be met, if the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I I I t 4 LNA, J CRP.t.'o.2617 of 2024

9. Acccrdingly, this Civil Revision Petition is illlov,ed and the irnpugned order is set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent lJo.l to file a fresh application for the same relief, if so advised. Orr filing of such application, the trial Courl s[,all dispose of the sarne on its own merits.

10. Pen<iing miscellaneous applications, il any. r hall stand closed. Int,rrim order, dated 23.08.2024, passed by this Court granting st:.r,, which was extended from time to time, shall stand vacated. Nc losls //TRUE COPY// T;TANT Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civi Judge, Bellampalli 2. One CC to Sri rl lVladhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri \'. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/gh W I I HIGH COURT DATED: { 410212025 . l , ORDER CRP.No.2617 ,tf 2024 --::::'-\< F->./ira ::\. -,,.\ '(( 2 1 APB 2[25 i 2 C a- t() \, /."1 'i' \'-' . .:.t .na' * t\l ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 6 4 la6