Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was subject matter of the suit.= whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ? a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and if the real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain the existence or otherwise of the rastha, it is always open for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through Court to compel them to appear before the Court. Further, there are number of other people through whom those facts could be ascertained. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit in dispute. The purpose for which the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act. One important aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit is simplicitor injunction suit. Further, this court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory
Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent
Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs
and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was
subject matter of the suit.=
whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ?
a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the
rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and
if the
real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain
the existence or otherwise of the rastha, 
it is always open for the
revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through
Court to compel them to appear before the Court.  
Further, there are
number of other people through whom those facts could be
ascertained.
A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan
annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence
of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of
proper adjudication of the suit in dispute.  
The purpose for which the
respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject
to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other
provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act.  
One important
aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that
the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit
is simplicitor injunction suit.  
Further, this court is in agreement
with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-
defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to
take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in   
accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)