Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 94 (AP)

Chackadath Varkey Rainu v. Kurmapu Savitri

2019-06-21

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2019
ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Since these three revisions arise out one suit and as they are interrelated, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these revisions by way of this common order. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in OS No. 453 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and she filed the said suit for the following reliefs: "(a) for partition of suit schedule property in 6 (Six) equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff, four shares to defendants 1 to 4 and one share to the 11th defendant; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants and their agents from altering the existing physical features of the schedule property till the partition of the schedule property is effected and the share of the plaintiff is allotted to her by metes and bounds; (c) the plaintiff be permitted to ascertain mesne profits by filing separate application and recover the same from defendants 1 to 4; (d) for costs of the suit; and (e) for such other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed IA No. 826 of 2018 under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice for her addition as 2nd plaintiff and for consequential amendments, flowing as a consequence of the same. The 1st respondent filed a counter, expressing consent for allowing the said application. Defendants 2 to 5 filed counter, resisting the said application and the request made therein. The learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, by way of an order dated 8.8.2018, dismissed the said application. In CRP No. 177 of 2019, the said order is under challenge. The petitioner herein also filed two un-numbered interlocutory applications, i.e., one under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the order dated 8.8.2018 passed in I.A. No. 826 of 2018 and the second one is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the first application. Both these applications were also dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and against which, CRP Nos. Both these applications were also dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and against which, CRP Nos. 53 and 55 of 2019 have been filed. Therefore, the fate of CRP Nos. 53 and 55 of 2019 depend on the outcome on CRP No. 177 of 2019. As such, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to proceed with the adjudication in CRP No. 177 of 2019. 4. Heard Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.; that in the event of allowing the application, the same would avert and avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings; that if the application is allowed, there can be a fair and just conclusion and finality and quietus for all the issues; that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the litigation; that had the contents of the supporting affidavit been considered by the Court below from proper perspective, the order impugned would not have emanated. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments: (1) Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another, AIR 1958 SC 394 . (2) Conugunta Subbarayudu v. Eluri Brahmanandan and others, AIR 1970 AP 211 . (3) Darji Krishna Murthy and others v. M. Shankar Reddy and others, 2014 (5) AID 24. (4) Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and others, 2004 (2) AID 95 (SC) : (2004) 2 SCC 601 . (5) Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (4) AID 98 (SC) : (2005) 11 SCC 403 . 6. (3) Darji Krishna Murthy and others v. M. Shankar Reddy and others, 2014 (5) AID 24. (4) Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and others, 2004 (2) AID 95 (SC) : (2004) 2 SCC 601 . (5) Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another, 2005 (4) AID 98 (SC) : (2005) 11 SCC 403 . 6. Per contra, it is contended by Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; that it is not the case of the petitioner that she purchased the property bona fidely and without knowledge of the pending litigation; that as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, leave of the Court is necessary and indispensable and the petitioner failed to obtain the same; that it is not the case of the petitioner that there is collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants as per Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.; and that the petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party to the present litigation. Learned Counsel in support of his submissions and contentions, places reliance on the judgment in Bibi Zubaida Rhatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and another, AIR 2004 SC 173 . 7. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the order impugned is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? (2) Whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the present suit? 8. In the case on hand, the suit is for the reliefs of partition and permanent injunction and for mesne profits. The schedule of property is the land admeasuring 830 Square yards alongwith RCC slabbed house, situated at Gollapalem Village, Gajuwaka, within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. 8. In the case on hand, the suit is for the reliefs of partition and permanent injunction and for mesne profits. The schedule of property is the land admeasuring 830 Square yards alongwith RCC slabbed house, situated at Gollapalem Village, Gajuwaka, within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. When the original suit stood posted for plaintiffs evidence, the petitioner herein, a third party to the suit proceedings, represented by her husband and power of attorney holder, filed IA No. 826 of 2018 on 6.8.2018 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking her addition as 2nd plaintiff and to add the following paragraph as Paragraph 3(h) after Paragraph 3(g): "The 1st plaintiff has sold her share in the suit schedule property for valuable consideration to the 2nd plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 31.1.2007 bearing Document No. 427/2007 and so as also the 10th defendant in the above suit has sold her share in the suit schedule property for valuable consideration to 2nd plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 12.2.2007 bearing Document No. 668/2007 and accordingly 2nd plaintiff is entitled for the 1/6 share of the 1st plaintiff and for 1/6 share of the deceased 10th defendant i.e., 2/6 share in the suit schedule property being bona fide purchaser and to substitute the words "one such share to the plaintiff and one share to the 11th defendant" from Paragraph 6(a) of the plaint with "2 shares to the 2nd plaintiff' after the word allot in Paragraph 6(a) of the plaint and to affect all necessary consequent amendments in consequence of impleading of 2nd plaintiff in the suit else the petitioner/ proposed 2nd plaintiff will be suffer irreparable loss and hardship." 9. In the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 826 of 2018, the petitioner herein stated inter alia that she purchased 1/6th share and another 1/6th share from the plaintiff and 10th defendant by way of registered sale deed bearing Document No.427/2007 dated 31.1.2007 and Document No. 668/2007 dated 12.2.2007, as such, she would be entitled to 2/6th undivided and unspecified share in the plaint schedule property; that she is the bona fide purchaser; that defendants 1 and 4 in the present suit and one Anthony Swamy Vincent filed OS No. 890 of 2007 and OS No. 1517 of 2007 before the same Court to declare the above mentioned sale deeds as null and void and that the petitioner is contesting the suits as defendant No. 2 by filing the written statements. 10. The plaintiff-1st respondent herein filed a counter, expressing no objection for the addition of the petitioner as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit and also admitting execution of the sale deeds dated 31.1.2007 and 12.2.2007 by herself and defendant No. 10. Defendants 2 to 5 filed counter, opposing the application. 11. As mentioned supra, the present IA No. 826 of 2018 came to be filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, when the suit stood posted for the plaintiffs evidence. In this context, it may be appropriate to note that the laudable object of the legislation in inserting Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of litigation which is obviously and undoubtedly intended for peace and tranquility in the society. Reading of the said provision of law makes it very much manifest that the Courts are conferred with wider discretion to either strike off or add any person as plaintiff or defendant whose presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 12. In order to resolve and adjudicate the issues in the present case, it would be highly essential to refer to the judgments cited by both the learned Advocates. 13. In Saila Bala Dassi's case (supra), it is held as follows: "It is obvious that there are several substantial questions arising for determination in which the appellant as purchaser of the properties is vitally interested, and indeed is the only person interested. 13. In Saila Bala Dassi's case (supra), it is held as follows: "It is obvious that there are several substantial questions arising for determination in which the appellant as purchaser of the properties is vitally interested, and indeed is the only person interested. As a purchaser pendente lite, she will be bound by the proceedings taken by the first respondent in execution of her decree, and justice requires that has would be given an opportunity to protest her rights. We accordingly, set aside the order of the Court below dated August 6, 1956 and direct that the appellant be brought on record as additional appellant in Appeal No. 152 of 1955. As Sudhir Kumar Mitter, the appellant now on record, has dropped the fight with the first respondent, we conceive that no embarrassment will result in there being on record two appellants with conflicting interest. But, in any event, the Court can, if necessary, take action." 14. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer Paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit of the defendants 2 to 5, wherein it is stated as follows: "The respondent submits that the suit OS No. 453/2006 is filed for partition and even as per the plaintiff she sold her share in the suit property by way of registered sale deed, therefore nobody can continue the litigation that she is the owner of the property and such right lost by execution of the registered sale deed. The 10th defendant has no representation in the suit and more over she died and only daughter of her added by the plaintiffs. The respondent submits that the plaintiff has executed the alleged registered sale deed dated 31.1.2007 in the name of petitioner for her 1/6th share ousted the plaintiff to proceed in the Court of law since the right and possession was sold. Nobody can contest after execution of the registered sale deed that he has title and right in suit schedule property and it is nothing but misguiding the Court of law and abuse the process of the Court." 15. Nobody can contest after execution of the registered sale deed that he has title and right in suit schedule property and it is nothing but misguiding the Court of law and abuse the process of the Court." 15. In Conugunta Subbarayudu's case (supra), a Division Bench of our High Court at Paragraph No. 16 held as under: "It follows from the above" discussion that the application of the settle pendente lite was one under Section 146, C.P.C., that it could be entertained notwithstanding that the truth and validity of the settlement was disputed, that the inquiry into the truth and validity of the settlement cannot be deemed to be foreign to the scope of the appeal, that filing of a compromise memo was no bar to entertaining the application or inquiry into its merits, that filing of a compromise per se does not terminable the proceedings before the appellate Court, that the petitioner who has filed his petition earlier than the compromise memo, has a right to object to the compromise and the Court has a duty to inquire into it once he is added as a party, that though addition as a party is discretionary with the Court, it is a discretion which is to be exercised judiciary after duly considering the petition that the Court below did not err in. entertaining the petition or deciding it on merits for the petitioner being made a party." 16. In Darji Krishna Murthy's case (supra), this Court at Paragraphs 16 to 18 and 33 held as under: "16. The object and intention of the Legislature in inserting Order I Rule 10 of CPC is to avoid and to avert multiplicity of litigation, which is uncongenial for the peace and tranquility in the society. 17. A reading of the said provision of law makes it very much evident that the Courts are given wider discretion under the said provision to meet every case or defect of a party and to proceed with a person who is either necessary or proper party whose presence in the Court is essential for effective determination of the issues involved in the suit. 18. 18. While dealing with the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the impact and effect of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act cannot be lost sight of. The object and intention of the Legislature in incorporating such type of provisions is to safeguard the innocent and bona fide purchasers of properties for valuable considerations and to avoid multiple transactions in respect of the same property. Independent assessment and consideration analysis based on the facts of each case has to be undertaken while dealing with the applications filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC and there is no straight jacket formula for deciding the rights of the proposed parties to gain entry into the suit. Under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act bona fide transactions are protected. It is a settled and well established proposition of law that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief and the same cannot be granted for mere asking and in fact all the surrounding circumstances and the bona fides of the parties to the transaction will have to be assessed for granting the said relief. ............ ............ 33. Coming to the case on hand, the suit agreement of sale was executed as long back as in 9.11.1999 and the 1st respondent herein instituted the present suit on 22.12.2011 and the proposed parties/petitioners herein are tracing out their right to the property by virtue of a Registered Sale Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 6.8.2011. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said transaction is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Another significant aspect in the present case is that the defendants 1 to 3 remained ex parte and they are not contesting the suit. Therefore, the persons prima facie likely to be effected are the petitioners in the event of granting decree by the Court below in favour of the plaintiff. Another significant aspect in the present case is that the defendants 1 to 3 remained ex parte and they are not contesting the suit. Therefore, the persons prima facie likely to be effected are the petitioners in the event of granting decree by the Court below in favour of the plaintiff. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC and Section 16(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the pre suit transaction by registered document dated 6.8.2011, this Court deems it appropriate that the proposed parties/petitioners herein are proper and necessary parties for the litigation for the present lis for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the present lis." 17. In Raj Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraphs 2, 3, 9, 10 and 15 while dealing with the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and Section 146 of C.P.C., held thus: "2. During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property, respondent No. 4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) by a registered deed of sale dated 24.9.1995, the respondent No. 4, it appears, was not aware of the pendency of the suit; rather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was not a subject-matter of any litigation. On 27.11.1995, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). On 30.5.1998, the respondent No. 4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record. Prayer was also made for condoning the delay in filing the application inasmuch as the ex parte decree was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 4. The Trial Court has allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the same and held that a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was made out. The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court which has been dismissed. 3. The Trial Court has allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the same and held that a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was made out. The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court which has been dismissed. 3. The only plea raised and vehemently urged by Shri S.N. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant before this Court, as was done before the Trial Court and the High Court too. Is that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC can be filed only by a defendant and by no one else. The respondent No. 4 is a transferee pendente lite and in the absence of his having promptly taken steps under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record, he remains bound by the result of the suit. He must suffer the consequences of an adverse decree passed against his vendors who have not chosen to lay any challenge to the ex parte decree, submitted the learned Counsel. ............ ............ 9. A decree passed against the defendant is available for execution against the transferee or assignee of the defendant-judgment-debtor and it does not make any difference whether such transfer or assignment has taken place after the passing of the decree or before the passing of the decree without notice or leave of the Court. 10. The law laid down by a four-Judges Bench of this Court in Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another (supra), is apt for resolving the issue arising for decision herein. A transferee of property from defendant during the pendency of the suit sought himself to be brought on record at the stage of appeal. The High Court dismissed the application as it was pressed only by reference to Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC and it was conceded by the applicant that, not being a person who had obtained a transfer pending appeal, he was not covered within the scope of Order 22 Rule 10. In an appeal preferred by such transferee this Court upheld the view of the High Court that a transferee prior to the filing of the appeal could not be brought on record in appeal by reference to Order 22 Rule 10 of the CIV. In an appeal preferred by such transferee this Court upheld the view of the High Court that a transferee prior to the filing of the appeal could not be brought on record in appeal by reference to Order 22 Rule 10 of the CIV. However, the Court held that an appeal is a proceeding for the purpose of Section 146 and further the expression 'claiming under' is wide enough to include cases of devolution and assignment mentioned in Order 22 Rule 10. Whoever is entitled to be but has not been brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 in a pending suit or proceeding would be entitled to prefer an appeal against the decree or order passed therein if his assignor could have filed such an appeal, there being no prohibition against it in the Code A person having acquired an interest in suit property during the pendency of the suit and seeking to be brought on record at the stage of the appeal can do so by reference to Section 146 of the CPC which provision being a beneficent provision should be construed liberally and so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense. Their Lordships held that being a purchaser pendente lite, a person will be bound by the proceedings taken by the successful party in execution of decree and justice requires that such purchaser should be given an opportunity to protect his rights. ............ ............ 15. We hold that a lis pendens transferee, though not brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, is entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside a decree passed against his transferor-the defendant in the suit." 18. In Amit Kumar Shaw's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. held at Paragraphs 14, 16 and 18 as follows: "14. An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. ............ Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule as also under Order 1 Rule 10. Since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. ............ ............ 16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be jointed as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. ............ 18. In our opinion, the presence of the appellants was absolutely necessary since the appellants are the only persons who has got subsisting right, title and interest in the suit. The appellants are at liberty to contest the matter on merits." 19. Corning to the judgment cited by Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the respondent in Bibi Zubaida Rhatoon's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 held as follows: "7. The appellants are at liberty to contest the matter on merits." 19. Corning to the judgment cited by Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned Counsel for the respondent in Bibi Zubaida Rhatoon's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 held as follows: "7. The learned Senior Counsel Shri S.B. Sanyal strenuously urged that even though the petitioner is a transferee pendente lite within the meaning of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to afford effective opportunity to her to prosecute the suit for redemption of mortgage and the counter suit for specific performance of the contract, her joinder in two suits as party and prayer to bring subsequent events on record by proposed amendment to the pleadings ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. ............ ............ 10. It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit. 11. Where a party does not ask for leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may not be properly conducted by the plaintiff on record, yet he will be bound by the result of the litigation even though he is not represented at the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation was not properly conducted by the original party or he colluded with the adversary." 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the law laid down in the later judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgment, on which the learned Counsel for the respondents places reliance, would not render any assistance to the respondents herein. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the law laid down in the later judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgment, on which the learned Counsel for the respondents places reliance, would not render any assistance to the respondents herein. It is also required to be noted that the plaintiff herein did not raise any objection with regard to the addition of the petitioner herein as 2nd plaintiff and in fact, in the counter, she stated about the execution of the sale deeds dated 31.1.2007 and 12.2.2007 in favour of the petitioner herein. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents herein, it is averred by the respondents that as per the plaintiff, she sold the suit schedule property by way of sale, as such nobody is continuing the litigation that she is the owner of the property and such right lost by execution of the registered sale deed and that the 10th defendant has no representation in the suit and she died and her only daughter was added by the plaintiff. In the instant case, the suit is admittedly for the relief of partition and according to the petitioner, she purchased undivided shares from the plaintiff and the 10th defendant. Therefore, in order to protect her interest in the property, she wants to come on record as 2nd plaintiff in the original suit. Therefore, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the petitioner herein is not a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 21. Having regard to the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be contended by the respondents herein that the petitioner herein is neither a proper nor necessary party for adjudication of the issues. 22. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred judgments, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents with reference to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also pertinent to note in this context that at Paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 826 of 2018, the petitioner herein stated, though not in so many terms, that she is a bona fide purchaser. 23. It is also pertinent to note in this context that at Paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 826 of 2018, the petitioner herein stated, though not in so many terms, that she is a bona fide purchaser. 23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also places on record legal definition of 'bona fide purchaser' as mentioned in Webster Dictionary and according to which, 'bona fide purchaser' includes a purchaser who purchases in good faith without notice of any defect in title and for a valuable consideration. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and in view of the existence of the registered documents sale deeds as on today said to have been executed by the plaintiff and the 10th defendant in the suit, selling 2/6th of the plaint schedule property and having regard to the averments at Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 5, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a proper and necessary to the present litigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the presence of the petitioner herein is highly essential and imperative for the purpose of adjudication of the issues finally in the suit. Accordingly, having regard to the above reasons, this Court finds no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which are impugned in the present revisions, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, CRP No. 177 of 2019 is allowed, setting aside the order dated 8.8.2018 passed by VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in IA No. 826 of 2018 in OS No. 453 of 2006; and consequently, the said I.A. stands allowed. Consequently, CRP Nos. 53 and 55 of 2019 are closed as no orders are necessary in view of the order in CRP No. 177 of 2019, ID 2019 ANBHSA LEGAL DECISIONS (Fortnightly)--Oct. 1" allowing the IA No. 826 of 2018 in OS No. 453 of 2006. 25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these civil revision petitions shall stand closed.