HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2499 OF 2010 DATE:25-06-2010
BETWEEN
Janipalli Varahala Rao
AND
…Petitioner
Smt. Pinipe Nagamani & others.
…Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2499 OF 2010
ORDER:
On allowing the implead petition filed by the daughters of the plaintiff in I.A.No.248 of 2010 in O.S.No.286 of 2006 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 24.4.2010, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff to revise the said order.
According to the third parties-respondents 1 and 2 herein, they are the daughters of the plaintiff and first defendant in the suit, that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property which was gifted to them by their mother-first defendant under document No.2187/2006, dated 26.6.2006 and that their father-plaintiff contented for the said gift. According to them, the suit schedule property was delivered to them on 26.6.2006 together with link documents. While so, in detriment to their interest, the revision petitioner-plaintiff who is their father filed the suit against their mother-first defendant and their younger sister- second defendant seeking declaration of title over the suit schedule property suppressing the factum of the gift of the property given to them. The lower Court after considering the respective pleas allowed the I.A. by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that at the stage when the matter is posted for arguments, the impugned I.A. came to be filed and therefore, the lower Court ought not to have allowed the said I.A. and the respondents 1 and 2 have to file an independent suit. I do not see any merit in the contention for the reason that with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the lower Court rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the impugned I.A. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting correction by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
JUNE 25, 2010 Tsr.