THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 591 OF 2020
O R D E R:
Against the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in E.A.No.50 of 2019 in E.P.No.1473 of 2019, this Revision is filed.
The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this Revision, are that the petitioners filed O.S.No.882 of 2013 for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs made submissions on 22.02.2019 and the respondents-defendants concluded their arguments on 08.03.2019, on which date, the suit was reserved for judgment and on 10.04.2019 judgment was delivered. However, in the interregnum, on 26.02.2019, plaintiff No.3 died in U.S.A., which fact was not known to the parties to the proceedings. E.P.No.1473 of 2019 came to be filed on 15.07.2019, in which, the legal representatives of plaintiff No.3 were also shown as decree holders. In the said E.P., E.A.No.50 of 2019 was filed by judgment debtor No.3 seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P. mainly contending that the legal representatives of plaintiff No.3, who died on 26.02.2019, were not brought on record, as such, the judgment and decree passed on 10.04.2019 would be a nullity. The trial Court by the impugned order, allowed the E.A.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the E.P. proceedings would not be held to be nullity merely on account of one 2 CKR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2020 of the plaintiffs dying in the interregnum period and in support of the same, he placed reliance on the judgments reported in Mohd. 1 Hussain (Dead) by LRs. & others Vs. Occhavlal & Ors., and Himangshu Bhusan Kar and others Vs. Manindra Mohan Saha2. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to proceed with the E.P. proceedings and the objection with respect to the maintainability of the E.P. can as well be decided while deciding the same itself. He also submits that on six occasions, the counsel for the petitioners was present, however, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. In the circumstances, he prays for allowing the Revision.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the Revision and submits that the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 is a nullity and is inexecutable, as, all the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.3 were not brought on record and in the circumstances, the E.P. is not maintainable. He also submits that the trial Court had rightly granted stay of the E.P. proceedings.
From the above, it is evident that as on date, the E.P. is still pending. It may be noted that whether the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019 would be nullity on account of the death of plaintiff No.3 and as his legal representatives are not on record and whether the E.P. is maintainable or not are the issues to be decided by the trial Court after considering the submissions to be adduced by the 1 (2008) 3 SCC 233) 2 AIR 1954 Calcutta 205 3 CKR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2020 respective learned counsel. In the circumstances, the order under revision shall be considered as ad-interim order.
In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 09.01.2010 passed in E.A.No.50 of 2019 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to consider the E.P. along with the E.A. and pass appropriate orders after considering the submissions of the respective learned counsel, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Dt:09.06.2021 Note: Issue cc in one week.
kdl 4 CKR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2020 5 CKR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2020