The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSI] \TAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3141 OI 2025 ORAL OR.DER: Heard Mr.S.S atyanarayana, leamed counsel for .he petitioner.

2. Petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.6li of 2022 (old O.S.No.943 of 2013) on the file of the leamed Sen r r Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent, his brother, seekin 1 partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properr . During the pendency of the said suit, he has filed an applicatiot grnder Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vicfu i.A.No.622 of 2024 to implead Sri Nomula Venkateshwa'l .r, Smt.Gatla Bhagyamma, Smt.Madishetty Santhamma an<[ Smt.Guduru Leelamma and in the place of Smt.Eshwaramm I her sons Sri M.Madishetty Raja Gopal, Sri M.Chakradari, Sri Iv. )alagi and Sri Parameshwar, who are his sisters, brother-in-law an I nephews, as parties to the suit, contending that his father and n.r ther died. His deceased parents blessed with rwo sons and five dau 3hters. He has fiXg sisters. Out of five sisters, two sisters i.e . Smt.Nomula 2 Devakamma and Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma died. Smt.Nomula Devakamma was issue less. In the place of Smt.Nomula Devakaurma, her husband has to be impleaded. The husband of Smt.Madishetty E,shwaramma also died. Therefore, on behalf of Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma, her four sons have to be impleaded as parly defendants and their particulars are mentioned above.

3. It is further contended that at the time of institution of the suit, he has not shown them as parties to the suit since at the time of performance of their rnarriages his father provided enough cash, gold omaments and properties to them towards their share. There is no. claim over the subject property. After the death of his father, subject property devolves as interstate succession among them. During the life time of his lather only in the presence of all his sisters, his father made the division of the subject property in between himself and the respondent allotting equal shares to each. Therefore, he is intending to add his sisters, his brother-in-law and nephews as parties to the suit. / 3

4. The said application was opposed by the respo dent by filing counter contending that there is a delay in filing the ; id application and petitioner has filed the aforesaid application ' ith false and baseless allegations. The pleadings are contradictory

5. Vide the impugned order dated 17.03.202:; learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding lat the said application is filed for impleadment of his sisters. trother-in-law and nephew contending that they are not entitled f-c r a share in the suit schedule property as they were sufficiently give r rnonitory and valuable gold ornaments at the time of their marr r ges. With the aforesaid finding, the said application was dismissed

6. As discussed supra, petitioner has filed the tlrresaid suit in O.S.No.943 of 2013 in the year 2013 against the resp, ndent seeking partition and separate possession of the suit sched,t e property. In the affidavit filed in I.A.No.622 of 2O24 itself, he I rs specifically pleaded that his sisters has no share. His father divil d and allotted halfshare to the petitioner and halfshare to the respc rdent over the suit schedule property in the presence of their siste s. Though he 4 has f,rled the suit in the year 20i3, he has filed the present application only in the year 2024 to implead his sisters, brother-in- law and nephervs as parties to the said suit. There is a delay of eleven (11) years. There is no explanation, much less the plausibte explanation from the petitioner for the said abnormal delay. 7 There is no (ispute with regard to the legal position that an application under the Order I Rule l0 of C.p.C. seeking impleadment can be filed at any stage and the said principle was also laid down in Smt.Aswalhamma v. Il.M.Vijayaraghavatand Shidlingappa Basawantappo Shipori v. Padmaba/. But in the present case, even according to the petitioner his sisters have no right over the suit schedule property. His father divided and allotted equal share over the suit schedule properfy to the petitioner and respondent in the presence of his sisters

8. The pleadings of the petitioner are contrary to the relief sought by him the aforesaid I.A. According to him, his sisters have no share in the suit schedule property. Even then he is seeking to I AIR I 999 Karnataka 2 I , MAxrJ,,Ke/o2l jlt986 5 implead them as parties to the suit proceedings fil d by him for partition. In fact, petitioner has to examine his sistcr i as witnesses in the said suit in supporl of his contention that hi; lather divided thc subject properfy equally in favour of the 'etitioner and respondent in the presence oftheir sisters. As discus; d supra, there is a delay of I 1 years in filing the said I.A. On cons i leration of the said facts, learned trial Court dismissed the said app i :ation filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order. There is no e r or. Therefore, present revision is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disr Lissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, i any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-C.DEEPIKA ASSII; 'ANT REGISTRAR \ \,I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge Warangal at Hanumakonda, Warrrt Jal District 2. One CC to SRl. DT SATYANARAYANA PULLURU Advo: te [OPUC] 0 J Two CD Copies PKlPSL Yd ? /fi, -1 tt"- \u' (, o 2t . 11 ?02$ * /),Ee t i ( () \ * I I I i I ! I I I I I ! I t I HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 DISMISSED