High Court · 2025

If Bl#iB?I,1fi [ft,Y?9,.,1'.:,lli]iliT,:i,""t&^sricurture'R/o -F;#"5*'*ltffi litft1X?3llt,tn"io?X8liii,'*"3f';'P,*'l-:*:^ l'l "Sg;lSr::'1,['F:Xft ":'r%[.'"?"':T]''t'":Bi[:'JfS":e'"?'g8iJ"]ilft *X#elll!:,i1lxliJiJ.e;*%"$,fi :;:'"'*''fi 3l?"?:i#BiSf; ili*" " fiTJ.:X?f:1RyJ'fi [X ,T$1 B'J:'mXs'"iJfii t'h""'fi:8:l?:ffi:rs' ., about46 vears' occ Business' R/o t.:g,;g,lr:B['j]Xft* fii*#e*ii 3g.TheTahsildar,Farooqnagar,ShadnagarTown,R.R.District. 40.The Sub Registrar, Farooqnagar' R R District 41 . The Joint Sub Registrar' Rangareddy District' ...ResPondents/Defendants .r'r:ilr",p;J:#J.r:?ji3g1:t[:fi ffi..1ff * Eil,i,::g:€,yij:?H:%:8ftXS":il)?3*? edabout66vears'occ about 38 vears' occ ^'ed "fr ,+**gBT.t":",xtH*,H:sftff :lq;":n:r!::f '{8s'i'3;!"'" Nos'42 to zl4lProposed Defendant Nos'42 to zl4 "'Respondent IA NO :1OF 2024 petition under Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in inJ Hign-Co"t mav be pleased to stay th; file of the bourt of senior civil "p"'iti[t' the affidavit filed in support'"t'tnl "d ,lil.ilii;ii "; alt further proceedinss ," o iiiiJl, sr,Io;;gar, p-endins disposal of the cRP' .--'- q l.'., Counsel for the petitioner:SRl CHEKKA VENKATA RATNAM GUPTA Counsel for fl"re Rt:spondents: _ _ _ The Court marJe the following: ORDER i\ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY CI SION P ro NN o.3 091 OF 024 2 ORDERz This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order' oy the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar tn

1.A.No.562 of 2023in OS'No'2 ol20t7' 2. Heard Sri Ch'V'R'Gupta' leamed counsel for the revision petitioner' Despite service of notice on respondents' none appeared on their behalf' Hence' the matter is taken up for adjudication based on merits of the case' 3. The revision petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in the suit' For convenience' the parties will be hereinafter refered to as they are arrayed in the suit' 4. The brief factual matrix of the case required for adjudication of the present case is that the plaintiff filed suit in OS'No'2 of 2017 on the file ofsenior Civil Judge' Shadnagar' against the defendants to declare the registered documents as null and void and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property' During the pendency of the said suit' defendant No'3 expired' therefore, the plaintiff hled IA'No'562 of 2023 seeking to condone i 2 the delay of j94S days in filing rhe L.R. t:N,.No.3oet llli2l application to bring the LRs cf derrcased defe 5. In trr,: affi4aui1

10.07 .tnta .,- ..,.-,,;.;;;:::"*."ed ndant No.3 on record. , filed in suppoft of the altplicir.tion, rhar she came ro kr:or,2rex111,"

0.3 recently only and that ^r^ ,- :"':.-ro detairs ,f I_^s of defendanr tnat after sr:culing 4," *" r, she fi.led an aPplication to bring the LRs of defendant *,r-, r.3 on record along with an ap.plir:ation for condonaiion rf de.lay of 1945days in filing the sard applic,rrion and as such. lhe r:lelay is not intentional, but only dtre to lack of krowledrr-e ol ,jearh oldr:fendant No.3 and sou_qht to c(ln,.lone tlte delay.

6. The trial Cour.t vide impugned order dated 2g.t)6.2024 dismissed the s aid application with an observation thar hug,: delay of 1945 days is not properly explained by the plainriff. L[erce, the present Rer.ision petition.

7. It is apt o ref'er to Rule i0_A of Order XXII CpC u..hich reads as her:unc e,r:_ "Wenever (t pleader appearing for a porty to lhe .'uit comes lo knoty about the death of that party, lte sltcrll inform the ('ourt about it, and the Court shall thereup,trt give rt'ttice rtf such death to the other party' and' for tltis 3 LNA, J CRP.No.3091 of 2024 purpose, the contract between the pleader and deceased party shall be deemed to subsist "

8. Thus, Rule 10(a) CPC casts a duty on the counsel appearing for a party to bring to the notice of the Court about the death of such partY. In the instant case, pemsal of record reveals that as g. defendant No.3 was not Iepresented by a counsel, he was set ex parte in the suit. Further, it appears that defendant No'4 is the , I brotherofdefendantNo.3andheisrepresentedbyacounseland he along with other defendants also filed written statement in the suit. However, the fact of death of defendant No'3 was not brought to the notice of the Coutl at least by the counsel appearing for defendant No.4. Therefore, in the absence of any information from the side of the defendants regarding the factum of death of defendant No.3, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff was aware of death of defendant No'3 ' 10. In the above fbctual scenario of the case' the trial Court except recording that no proper reasons are assigned by the plaintiff for condonation of delay, did not examine as to whether ./ 4 1 I . ,'^r.rr.rrr, !f/;rl Iror. the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revls iq1; petition is allowrxl and the order, dated 2g.06.2024, passed by the Senior Civil .Iudge at Shadnagar in LA.No.562 of 2023 in rf5.11o.2 o, 2017 i:; set aside and LA.No.56 2 of 2023 stands allou,ec . 12. ,\s a sequel, pending Miscellaneous petitions. stand c lose<I, No costs. i;,.any., shall //TRUE COPY// ,.it'+-.A?HJfil[A L - SECIIOft6FFICER To,

1. The Senicr Ciril Judge, Shadnagar 2. One CC tc, SRt (IHEKKA VENKATA RATNAM GUPTA, Advoc,ate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copier; ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:23 t}4tzOZs ORDER CRP.No.3091 of 2024 I I |J .$t (. \ i,: I ..-" k ::);!l:, ' ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS /o