The High Court · 2025

Smt. B.Kowsalya, Wo. Late B. Lakshmi Narsaiah, Aged about 90 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 1-3-183/40/C, SBI Colony, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad 500 080. Represented by SPA Holder B. Ashok, S/o. Late B.Lakshmi Narasaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-3-183/40/C, SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad 500 080 ...PETITIONER AND

1. P.Balchari, S/o. Late P.Anjaiah, (Died per LRS Respondents No.3 to 7) 2 P.Brahma Chari, S/o. Late Sri. P.Anjaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Auto Driver, Rlo. 1-3-77911 , Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS No.1 & 2

3. Smt. Pochampally Chandrakala, Wo. Late P.Balchari, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-3-842, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

4. Pochampally Naveen Chary, S/o. Late P.Balchari, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Ivlotor Mechanic, R/o. H.No.1-3-842, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

5. Smt. Jyothi, Wo. Brahmandam, R/o. Late P.Balchari, Aged about 37 years, Occ. housewife, R/o. Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

6. Smt. Prashanti, Wo. Shanker, Late P.Balchari, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Nagaram, Hyderabad.

7. Pochampally Praveen Chary, S/o. Late P.Balchari, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewile, R/o. H.No.1-3-842, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. (Respondents No.3 to 7 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ PROPOSED DEFENDANTS No.3 to 7 I lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayang that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.2993 of 2017 on the file of Vll Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposat of the above Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitroner: SMT. K. KIRAN MAYEE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI NARESH KUMAR NEEMKAR The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.IANA crVIL REVISION PETTTIoN No.2t97 of 2()24 ORDER: Challenging the order dated 06.O2.2O24 passed in I.A.No.79 of 2023 in I.A.No.337 of 2022 in O.S.No.2993 of 2O17 by the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courr, Hyderabad, the present Civij Revision petition is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner liled a suit for eviction ard recovery of rent, which was dismissed for default on 02.O3.2O2O. The petitioner then filed an application to set aside the dismissal order and restore the suit. Meanwhile, the legal heirs of the defendants informed the court that the defendant had passed away on OS_OZ.2O2O. The petitioner sought to condone the delay of a2T days in Iiiing al application to bring the legal heirs on record. However, the court dismissed the application, holding that it was not maintainable as the suit itself was dismissed for default. The court observed that the application of the petitioner for restoration of the suit did not include a prayer \ z SKS.J C.R-P'No 219? of2024 for bringing the legal heirs on record' Aggrieved bY the same ' the present civil revision petition is filed' 3. Heard Smt' K Kiran Mayee, learned counsel appearmg as. well as Sri Naresh Kumar on behalf of the behalf of the Petitioner learned counsel appearlng Neemkar, I resPondents' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4 conffary to law' evidence' and order of the trial court 1s probabilities and that the trial Court failed to consider that the suit of the petitioner for eviction, rent, and mesne prolrts was dismissed for default on 02 'O3 '2O2O ' and the application of the petitioner to restore the suit i'e'' I'A'No'337 ol 2022 is pending. She further submitted that the trial Court also overlooke'l the death of the defendant on 05'07'202O' and the subsequent appiication of the petitioner i'e'' I'A'No 79 of 2O23 to condone the delay in bringing the legal heirs of the defendants on record' She contended that the trial Court erredindismissingtheapplicationwithoutproperreasons, sratins rhat the dismissal of the main suit for defaUlt precluded condoning the deiav However, the application filed to stipport the restoration pedtion, and &ilts to 6tin* 3 ".*.t to.rrr oa"#?i the legal heirs on record would result in passing orders agarnst a dead person, which is impermissible under law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowng this Civil Revision petition.

5. On the other hanrl, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition to bring the deceased,s legal heirs on record is premature, as the suit was dismissed and has not been restored. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the trial Court in dismissing the petition. He requested the court to dismiss the civil revision petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petition to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record in I.A.No.337 of 2022 is maintainable. Since the respondent in I.A.No.337 of 2022 };ras passed away, it is imperative to bring their legal heirs on record to avoid proceeding against a deceased person. Further, the observation of the trial Court regarding delay is a technicai aspect, and the court may have insisted on filing an application under Section S of the Limitation Act. However, dismissing the petition to bring legal representatives on record i I I I \ I I I 4 SKS'J c-R.P.No.2Lg7 ol2024 without considering this aspect is not in accordarrce with law' Therefore, this Court deems it Iit to set aside the orde r of the triai Court and remands the matter for fresh disposai after hearing both parties' The parties are at liberty to fiie an appropriate application trefore the trial court' In view thereof' this Civil Revision Petition is allowed 7 . setting aside the order dated 06'02 '2024 passed in I'A'No'79 of 2o23in l.A'No 337 ol 2022 in O'S'No'2993 of 2017 by the learnedVIIJuniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,H't,derabad. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending'shallstand closed SD/. T IIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY' I CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 p lp The Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri K. Kiran mayee, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Naresh Kumar Neemkar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ry- HIGH COURT DATED:18103t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2197 of 2024 oEh l4 16 6 r c o t 1I PI n 20[ t u,rcH f(. ALLOWING'THE C.R.P. q\,r 1t I