1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed in IA.No.695 of 2022 in OS.No.1749 of 2008, dated 02.01.2023 by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to withdraw Item No-II of the suit schedule property came to be dismissed.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit i.e., OS.No.1749 of 2008. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 died.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein are not necessary parties to the CRP.

               3.2. Petitioner has filed IA.No.695 of 2022 stating that he filed the suit through an Advocate by name Sri Mohan Rao who is known to respondent No.4-defendant No.4 and his brother-in-law, they misled him to include schedule-II property in the suit by obtaining his signature fraudulently and he filed a complaint against his counsel before the Bar Council of Telangana in S.R.No.99 of 2021. Respondent No.2-defendant No.2 filed suit in OS.No.162 of 2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy against him and his sisters by mentioning wrong addresses and obtained an ex parte decree on 22.02.2021 in respect of suit schedule-II property and he has no intention to include schedule-II property in the plaint and he is not interested to proceed with the same and prayed to withdraw the claim relating to schedule-II of suit schedule property. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Vijay Pal Singh ((2017) AIR(SC) 5587), (2) Mohammed Mujtaba Ali Vs. Mohammed Murtaza Ali ((2022) 4 AndhLD 677) (3) G.Apparao Vs. Gorle Demudamma ((2022) 4 ALT 234).

4.1. Respondent No.2-defendant No.2 filed counter and contended that schedule-II property cannot be withdrawn because all the legal heirs of late Jayaram Singh i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4- defendant Nos.2 to 4 are having right and interest over the property and equal share.

               4.2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4-defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed their counter and contended that the application is filed at belated stage and the evidence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is closed and the affidavit is silent how suit schedule property-II belongs to the petitioner. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sheshamma and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and Another (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 14708).

5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed the application on 02.01.2023 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw suit schedule-II property which is impugned in the CRP.

6. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

7.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in OS.No.1749 of 2008 on 16.10.2008. Plaint Para No.3 states that “the plaintiff submits that the Government has assigned land admeasuring Acs.05-00 guntas in Sy.No.57 in Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy, Medak District by granting a Patta on 05.03.1975 in favour of plaintiff's father late Jayaram Singh. As per the terms of the Patta the property is to be enjoyed by late Jayaram Singh and his legal heirs. The property is also treated as joint family property. Item-II of the suit schedule property is land admeasuring Acs.05-00 guntas in Sy.No.57 of Nandigama Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy, Medak District”.

               7.2. The prayer made in the suit is to allot 1/5th share to the plaintiff in item-II of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds and the plaintiff be put in possession of the same.

8. Respondent No.2-defendant No.2 has filed written statement contending that “the intestate property of item-II shall be divided into 1/3rd share among the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2, K.Ashok is predeceased to his father namely K.Jayaram Singh, thereby the deceased Ashok has no existing right on the date of his death and at the same time, all the legal heirs of Ashok also died.

9. The learned trial Court has observed in the order that the evidence of the parties is concluded and the suit in OS.No.1749 of 2008 is posted for arguments on 21.12.2022. IA.No.695 of 2022 came to be filed by the petitioner on 28.11.2022. When once the petitioner-plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that Item-II of the suit schedule property is a joint family property, now he cannot turn around and say that he has no intention to include the property and has no intention to proceed with the same. Affidavit is silent for what reasons the petitioner intends to withdraw Item-II of the plaint schedule property.

10. The learned trial Court observed in the order that the father of the petitioner (late K.Jayaram) executed a will in respect of other properties and there was no recital in the will about item-II and is an intestate property. Petitioner has filed IA.No.695 of 2022 at the fag end of the suit and is estopped from withdrawing Item-II of the suit schedule property and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

11. This Court has gone through the decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel, they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case.

12. In Seshamma4, the High Court of Karnataka observed that “in the partition suit plaintiffs and defendants stands in equal foot and if any one objects to withdrawal of the suit then the suit may be continued as plaintiffs by transposing themselves in the suit. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the High Court of Karnataka.

13. Petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court, CRP is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

14. In the result, CRP is dismissed without costs.

Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.