THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2888 of 2014 Dated: 20.09.2014 Between:
Bandaru Narsing Rao and others .. Petitioners and Sri Bandaru Ram Chander and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy For Mr. K. V. Rusheek Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 23.06.2014 in I.A.No.853 of 2011 in O.S.No.237 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, at Miyapur.
I have heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K.V. Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration that they are the sole and surviving legal heirs of late Bandaru Lingamma, wife of late Bandaru Rajaiah. After the trial is completed and the suit is at the stage of arguments, respondents 1 to 20 have filed I.A.No.853 of 2011 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for their impleadment as defendants in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, they have referred to genealogy and pleaded that they are the descendents of Bandaru Venkata Kistaiah, being his grandchildren, and that Bandaru Lingamma is the wife of Bandaru Rajaiah, who was no other than the brother of their grandfather. The petitioners have filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. By order dated 23.06.2014, the lower Court has allowed the said application by observing that the declaration for legalheirship is a relief i n rem and that, therefore, it is appropriate that persons who seek to contest such claim are impleaded, in order to avoid a subsequent suit.
While it is true, as pleaded by Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel, that the application filed by respondents 1 to 20 is belated, in my view, it is appropriate that all issues pertaining to the claim of legalheirship are adjudicated in the present suit, instead of allowing respondents 1 to 20 to file a separate suit. Indeed, it will be in the better interest of the petitioners to let the said issue settled in the present suit itself instead of subjecting themselves to another round of litigation at the hands of respondents 1 to 20. From this perspective, I do not find any error of jurisdiction on the part of the lower Court in allowing respondents 1 to 20 to get impleaded as defendants in the suit. However, since the suit is at the stage of arguments and the same requires to be reopened for the purpose of adducing evidence by respondents 1 to 20, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit positively within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3973 of 2014 stands disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th September, 2014 IBL