Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 153 (AP)

Perala Kista Rao v. Sripuram Bhadramma

2004-02-09

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Sampath Prabhakar reddy, learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent in the civil revision petition is Gajarla Ramaswamy, who is the 1st defendant in the suit in O. S. No. 41 of 1992 on the file of Sub-Court, karimnagar, which was renumbered as O. S. No. 4 of 1996 on the file of II Additional district Judge, Karimnagar. The civil revision petition against 2nd respondent was dismissed for default on 20-11-2000. The revision petitioner 2nd defendant in the suit in O. S. No. 4 of 1996, Perala Kishan Rao, who was brought on record, as per the orders in IA No. 2084 of 1992, dated 7-2- 1994 added as 2nd defendant, had preferred the present civil revision petition against the plaintiff-1st respondent, Siripuram"bhadramma. The said Siripuram Bhadramma originally filed a suit in O. S. No. 41 of 1992 on the file of Sub-Court, Karimnagar for recovery of Rs. 1,00,100/- from Gajarla ramaswamy 1st defendant in the said suit for realization of the amount by bringing the mortgaged property for sale. The present revision petitioner, who purchased the property of the said Gajarla Ramaswamy 1st defendant had been impleaded as 2nd defendant as per orders in LA. No. 2084 of 1992, dated 7-2-1994. In the said suit, the 1st defendant filed his written statement taking the plea of discharge. Subsequent thereto, the said suit was transferred to the court of II Additional District Judge, karimnagar and renumbered as O. S. No. 4 of 1996 and notice was ordered to be served on both the defendants in the suit. But, however, it is stated that as no notice had been served on the Counsel or on the 1st defendant, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial of the suit and the suit was decreed as against the 1st defendant and dismissed as against the revision petitioner- 2nd defendant in the suit. But, however, it is stated that as no notice had been served on the Counsel or on the 1st defendant, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial of the suit and the suit was decreed as against the 1st defendant and dismissed as against the revision petitioner- 2nd defendant in the suit. ( 3 ) THE grievance ventilated by the revision petitioner is that though the Trial court had dismissed the suit against the revision petitioner-2nd defendant, a preliminary decree was passed against the 1st defendant, who is the 2nd respondent In the civil revision petition and in that view of the matter, the revision petitioner is aggrieved of the said judgment and decree made in o. S. No. 4 of 1996 on the file of IInd District judge, Karimnagar. ( 4 ) THE civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. As already referred to supra, the Trial court had passed the preliminary decree as against the 1st defendant only and the said defendant was impleaded as a party in the civil revision petition as 2nd respondent, against whom an order of dismissal for default was made on 20-11-2000. Hence, in the absence of Gajarla Ramaswamy-1st defendant in the suit as a party-respondent in the present civil revision petition, the civil revision petition cannot be decided on merits. Apart from this aspect of the matter, even though the suit was dismissed as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant if aggrieved of the adverse findings if any, or affected by the decree granted as against the 1st defendant being a purchaser could as well prefer an appeal questioning the judgment and decree made in OS No. 4 of 1996 on the file II Additional District judge, Karimnagar and this remedy under article 227 of the Constitution of India definitely is a misconceived one. ( 5 ) HENCE, viewed from any angle, the civil revision petition has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner 2nd defendant had made a request to permit him to convert the civil revision petition into a regular appeal subject to the payment of Court fee and on complying with the other necessary formalities in this regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant such permission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant such permission. But however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given to the revision petitioner 2nd defendant to file a regular appeal as against the judgment and decree made in OS No. 4 of 1996 on the file n Additional District Judge, Karimnagar if he so advised. ( 6 ) WITH the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.