The High Court · 2025

Order

Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia' aggrieved by the.order daled 14t1ot2o22 passed in i.n f'lo zso of 2o2o in A S No 251 of 2016 on the file c"r.t of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad "iir,. Between:

1. Katuri-Venkateshwar Rag, (since dled9n 16^-11-?00-9 Rep byAppellantNo2) Sri Gandham nr.rci,X'iti'L"'iil-o s7o-i'i"-srr GJ Suryanaravaha' now aged 59 vears, occ- Builder'ii;l;'i"s o[i;int Residen6e in Fiat No 104' First Fr"6r-'F;rr?r C;r'1,'i6.io-3-7,-Pl"t No3' Fntrenchment Road' East Marredpa[y, secunoeiaoai'n-uir6i"nt"d py Gcn uotoe|- sri A.Dayanand s/o. Late Sri R.Venxatesn"ail&;i60;;;;;' o6c- au"iness' Rio H No 'l3-1-37/4' Sliirii'i"ti"v, Hvderaoaa"- 500 047' 2. Gandham Ramchandra Rao Of M/s'Gandham Associates' Rep by Sri Gandham Ramacnantrl nro* S16. f_"i6 Sri-G. J. Sr rr.naravana. now aged 59 vears, occ_ euiroer ii/6.niiing'offL; indhesidehce in'Flat No l04, First ii#i' Fririri aortt:'-N;lijle-7, aoi No 3' Entrenchment Road' East MarredPallY, Secunderabad ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1 V.L.Saroiini Devi, Died on 10-10-2016, Bepresented by Prooosed LR Sri John i n?i"illditlLiib-v. n/|rt nr Lrn] A6.o' io i"ii", occuiatio n- Bus i ness, R/o 1 - i,lfr:i?);:6,];iiol-r'itrsiim no'aol tstamp'et. rENALl,-s22 201 V.Madhuram, S/o.V.Samson, aged about 80 years* Occ- Retd from Service' iil.fr.ii;.;7-r-0, Hiniu Muitifi aoad, lslanipet, renati - 522201 Sri John Shaleem, S/o.V.Madhuram, aged about 48 Occ- Business Business' Hi;:H. i";"i ;rr:o-, Hinoi, -n r ril i. noaol istampet rena I i' A'P' 52220 1' 2 J ...RESPONDENTS IANO:1OF 2023 Petition under section

.1s1 .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit fited in support of the peiitio;, if," ffign C"r;;;;;,il;.*. stay of all further proceedings in ns zsltzola p.noing before the Court of the xl Addt chief Judge, city civir court at Hyoeraoai feloing disposar of main cRp. Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. MOHAMMED SANAULLAH FARHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N M KRISHNAIAH The Court made the following: ORDER k gk\^ HON'B LE SRI JUSTTCE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY d2 400of20 t) RE VI STO NPETITON Nos.t5 48 an CI VIL Mo CO M NO RD ER: f,rled l.A. Civit Revision Petition Nos l548 and 2400 ol 2021 are assailing the common the order' dated l4'10 2022' passed by Xl Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Courts' Hyderabad in No.736 and 735 of 2020 in A'S No 25l of 20 I6' respectively' By the impugned common order' the application filed to ng the LRs of appellant No'1 on record and the application frled condone the delay in titing thc said l-R application are disrnisscd by the First APPeltate Court' 3. Heard Sri Md' Sanaullah Farhan' leamed counsel lor the revision pet'itioners and Sri N M Krishnaiah' learned counsel fbr Z. respon dents. revision Petitioners

4. The herein are respondents in the appeal' are aPPe llants and respon dents

5. .Lhe petitioners rrled the appear aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07'09'2016 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge' City Civit Court' Hyderabad' During the pendency of the Appeal' respondent No' l expired and hence' the petil.ioners trled an 2 LNA, J CRP.Nos.l548 & 2400 of 2023 application vide IA.No.73 I ol 2020 to bring the LRs of the deceascd-appellant No.t on record and IA'No733 of 2020 to condone the delay of t095 days in filing the said l-R application' While the said applications-lA Nos 73 I and 733 of 2020 were pending adjudication, the petitioners again filed two more applications vide IA.Nos.735 o12020 seeking to condone the delay in filing the LR petition?nd IA.No 736 of 2O2O to bring the LRs of deceased appellant'No. I on record' The petitioners also filed an application in lA.No.732 of 2020 seeking to perrnit the General Power of Attomey Holder of appellant No' I to represent the latter in the suit. Ilowever, the said application was dismissed on l4.lO.2O22.lt is also pertinent to note that on the very same day' IA.Nos.T3landT33ol2020werealsodismissedasnotpressed. Further, by order ol even date, tA Nos 735 and 736 of 2020 were also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, which is under challenge in the present Revision.

6. In the impugned common order' the First Appetlate Court has observed that the petitioners have not properly explained the inordinate delay ol 1092 days caused in filing the application and ) LNA, J CRP.Nos.l 548 & 2400 of 2023 that no valid reasons have been assigned by the petitioners' The First Appeltate Court has lurther observed that appellant No l is represented by appellant No.2 and appetlant No 2 is represented by GPA holder-A.Dayanand and since the application seeking to pern.rit the GPA holder to represent appellant No' I is dismissed' the alfldavit filed by the said GPA hotder cannot be looked into' Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said applications by the First Appellate Coutt, the present Revision Petitions are filed'

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the First Appetlate Court failed to consider the factual background of the case as well as merits of the applications and has erroneously dismissedtheapplications.HefurthersubmittedthattheFirst Appeltate Court lailed to consider the fact that memo disclosing rhe death of appellant No. I was filed only on 09 12'2019 and immediately, apptication to bring the LRs of the deceased appellant No. I was filed by the petitioners and therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the petitioners in filing the LR application and this aspect was not properly construed by the First Appellate Court He fufthed subm itted that the First Appellate Court has given undue I r 4 I,NA, J CRP.Nos. t 54t & 2400 ol2023 weightage ro the dismissal of the application in IA.No.732 of 2020 and has conle to erroneous conclusion and finally, the leamed counsel prayed to ailow the Revision petitions. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents submitted rhat the petirioners initially, filed an application vide IA.Nos.73 i and 733 of 2020 and while rhe said applications were pending consideration, the petitioners have again liled two more applications in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 seeking rhe same reliefs as were sought lcrr in IA.Nos.73 I and 733 o1.2020 and as such, the larer applicarions in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020are not maintainab Ie

9. Learned counser ror the respondents fufther submitted that since IA.No.732 of 2020 was dismissed, the GpA holder has no locus standi to represcnt appellant No.2 and swear the affidavit on his behalland as such, rhe appricarions in IA.Nos.73 5 and 736 of 2020 filed by rhe GpA holder are also liable ro be dismissed, as was rightly done by the First Appellate Court b,v the impugned common order. l LNA, J CRP.Nos.l548 & 2400 of 2023

10. Perusal of record would disclose that both the applications_ IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 have been filed by the GpA holder of appellant No.2 pending consideration of IA.Nos.73 I and 733 of 2020, which were earlier filed lor the very same reliefs. ll. It is trite to nore that IA.No.732 of 2020 filed seeking to accord permission to the GPA holder to represent appellant No.2 in the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Courl by order dated

14.10.2022 and the said order is subsisting since the same has not been challenged. Therelorg the GpA holder is nor competent to represent appellant No.2 and swear the allldavit on his behatfand hence, the applications-lA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 filed by the said GPA holder are not maintainable. In the above factual background of the case, there is no necessity to delve into the merits olthe applications in IA.Nos.735 and :-36 of 2020.In such I I an event, the judgments cited by the leamed counsel for the i petitioners need not be adverted to. 12. Further, it is relevant to note that the petitioners have also not filed an application to set aside the abatement. 6 LNA, J CRP.Nos. t 548 & 2a00 of 2023

13. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of'the considered view that the Revision petitions are devoid of rnerits and the impugned common order warrants no interference b1.,this court. 14' Accordingly, these civir Revision petitions are dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. lnrerim order, dated 1g.0g.2023, passed by this Couft granting stay, which was extended from tirne to tirne. shall stand vacated. No costs. //TRUE COPYII i,i: .SD/. M OHO. ISMA IL qPUTY REGISTRA R 'r. The 2. One 3. One 4. Two MKN/sh Xl Addt. Chief Judge, City Civit Cou rt at Hyderliad, CC to SRt. MOHAMMED SANAUL CC to SRt N M KRTSHNATAH Adv CD Copies (fr- LAH FARHAN Advocate [OpUC ocate [OpUCj l \$ ECTION OFFICER \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:1 1l06t20?s ) J,.i.. .:!1' .1i-,? ,' - /.'.r't /': ,:) l) \ t 10 sEP mfr ",.ii .'.-)! Dr- ORDER GRP.No.I548 and 2400 ot 2023 SION PETITION IS DISMISSED CIVIL REVI ? \t