Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2450/2025 of KAVATI SREEHARI Vs VELICHETI MRUDHULA PADMA SARAVANA on 7 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2025 Between: 1. KAVATI SREEHARI, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO,
APHC010457862025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2025
Between:
1. KAVATI SREEHARI, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.302, S.K. TOWERS, DHANEKULAVARI
STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA URBAN- 520 008, N.T.R. DISTRICT.
2. KAVATI TIRUMALA, W/O U. LAXMAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT
49 YEARS, R/OEWS 1110, PHASE NO.3, K.P.H.B. COLONY, TIRUMALAGIRI, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD-72, TELANGANA
STATE.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. VELICHETI MRUDHULA PADMA SARAVANA, D/O ONGOLE
SRINIVASA RAO, W/O V. SURI BABU, AGED ABOUT 66
YEARS, R/O D.NO.1-10-97, ROAD NO.11, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500020, TELANGANA STATE.
2. JAMMULA LALITHA SRI, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, R/O D.NO. 15-21-35/602, BALAJI NAGAR, KUKATPALLI, HYDERABAD-500072, TELANGANA STATE.
3. TALASILA RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O ANNAIAH, MAJOR, R/OPLOT NO.201, BLOCK NO.1, APARNA MARYGOLD, GUNDLAPOCHAMPALLI, KOMPALLE, BAHADURPALLI, BOWRAMPETA, MEDCHAL- 500043, TELANGANA STATE.
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2450 of 2025
4. TANGIRALA KRUPA ANAND, S/O MOHAN RAO, MAJOR, R/O
D.NO.6-1/11-8/2, JAMES ST., PRIZEPET, CHITTINAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.
5. DULIPALA DEVENDRA RAO, S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O HARIJANAWADA, PIRYADU
NAINAVARAM VILLAGE VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, N.T.R. DISTRICT.
6. PEDAGADI SOMESWARA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.191, SF-4, YSR COLONY, JAKKAMPDUI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, N.T.R. DISTRICT
7. THE TAHSILDAR, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, N.T.R.
DISTRICT.
8. THE
REVENUE
DIVISIONAL
OFFICER-CUM-SUB
COLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.
9. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, N.T.R. DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A. SYAM SUNDAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2450 of 2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the plaint presented by the petitioners herein was returned for complying with the objection to delete defendant Nos.7 to 9 from the array of defendants, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3. Since the revision is preferred against an order returning the plaint before registering the suit, notice to respondents herein is dispensed with.
4. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit for declaration of their title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction. In the suit, along with defendant Nos.1 to 6, they have added the public officers working as Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada and also the State represented by District Collector, N.T.R. District, as defendant Nos.7 to 9. Initially, the Court took an objection that no notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was issued to them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs re-presented the suit by filing a petition under Section 80(2) of C.P.C. However, the trial Court again returned the plaint holding that defendant Nos.7 to 9 are not necessary parties to the suit and therefore, directed the plaintiffs to delete them from the array of defendants.
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2450 of 2025
5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are proper parties and even though no relief is claimed against them, as they are proper parties for deciding the suit, they are arrayed as defendant Nos.7 to 9 in the plaint and the trial Court erred in returning the plaint. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji1.
6. At para 5 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held that even though no relief is sought against a party, if the presence of the said party is essential for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute, he can be shown as a party to the suit. The Apex Court has explained the distinction between proper party and necessary party in the said judgment. From the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the legal position is made clear that even though no relief is claimed against a party, if he is a proper party to the suit, then he can be added as a party to the suit.
7. Further, whether the suit is bad for impleading an unnecessary party, who is not a proper and necessary party, or not is the matter to be decided during the course of trial and at the time of final adjudication. At the time of registering the suit, the Court need not go into the said question. When other requirements relating to filing of the suit are satisfied, the Court has to register the said plaint. Therefore, the trial Court has taken a premature objection. So, the impugned order returning the plaint suffers from legal flaw and it is liable to be set aside.
8. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned II Additional 1 (1996) 5 SCC 379
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2450 of 2025
District Judge, Vijayawada, returning the plaint presented by the petitioners herein. The learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is directed to register the plaint, if it is otherwise in order.
9. Registry is directed to return the original plaint filed along with the material papers of this civil revision petition to the petitioners.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 08.01.2026 IBL
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2450 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2025
Dt: 08.01.2026 IBL