Telangana High Court
Seelam Ramesh vs Velpula Bikshapathi, on 16 February, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3489 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel representing Sri N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. However, in the light of the relief sought by petitioners herein, notice to respondent No.1 / plaintiff No.1 is dispensed with. Perused the record.
2. Respondent No.1 herein / plaintiff No.1 has filed a suit vide O.S.No.174 of 2008 against respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein / defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession.
3. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein are claiming that they are legal heirs of petitioner No.1 / plaintiff No.2. According to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein, petitioner No.1 herein / plaintiff No.2 died on 05-05-2021. Therefore, they have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.422 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 51 of CPC seeking permission of the trial Court to implead them as plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 in O.S.No.174 of 2008. The said application was opposed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein on the following two (2) grounds:
KL,J C.R.P.No.3489 of 2023 2
1. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have to file an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC to bring them as L.Rs. of plaintiff No.2 along with an application to set aside abatement order.
2. They have suppressed the fact of filing of L.R. application by plaintiff No.1.
4. However, vide impugned order dated 29-09-2023, learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that petitioners therein failed to file L.R. application along with an application to set aside abatement order. They have also suppressed the fact of filing of L.R. application by plaintiff No.1, and return of the same.
5. Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zelavadiya 1 would submit that learned trial Court dismissed the said application on hypertechnicalities.
6. In the afore-cited judgment, Apex Court had an occasion to deal with scope of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and in paragraph No.14 of the said judgment it was held that Courts have to 1 2018 (2) ALD 82 (SC) KL,J C.R.P.No.3489 of 2023 3 consider the nature of relief sought, facts and decide the same instead of dismissing the same on hypertechnicalities. Courts have to do substantial justice to the parties. Trial Courts and High Courts should not adopt hyper technicalities which may result in miscarriage of justice.
7. The facts of the present case are slightly different to the facts of the said case. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 / plaintiff No.2 died on 05- 05-2021. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein have filed the aforesaid application vide I.A.No.422 of 2022 under Order I Rule 10 R/w. Section 151 of CPC to implead them as plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 only in November, 2022. Therefore, they have to file an application seeking abatement order along with an application to bring them as LRs of plaintiff No.1. They have not filed the said applications. Therefore, they cannot blame the learned trial Court for their fault.
8. As discussed supra, there is no dispute that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein are legal heirs of petitioner No.1 / plaintiff No.2 and his date of death is also not in dispute. Instead of filing application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC seeking to bring them as L.Rs., they have filed the present application under Order I Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking to implead them as plaintiff Nos.3 to 5. It is only due to lack KL,J C.R.P.No.3489 of 2023 4 of proper legal advice. Therefore, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot be suffered.
9. Finding of the learned trial Court that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein have suppressed the fact of earlier application filed by plaintiff No.1 to bring them as L.Rs. is not proper. It is plaintiff No.1 who filed the said application, but not petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein cannot be expected to know filing of the said L.R. application by plaintiff No.1 and return of the same.
10. As stated supra, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein have not filed an application to set aside the abatement order. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 29-09-2023 in I.A.No.422 of 2022 in O.S.No.174 of 2008 pending on the file of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Hanumakonda is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court. Liberty is granted to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 to file an appropriate application to bring them as L.Rs. of petitioner No.1 / plaintiff No.2 along with an application to set aside the abatement order. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall file the said applications by 19-02-2024. Liberty is also given to them to file an application to advance the suit from 26-02-2024 to 19-02- 2024. They have to file the said application on 19-02-2024, positively.
KL,J C.R.P.No.3489 of 2023 5 Learned trial Court shall decide all the applications strictly in accordance with law.
11. As discussed supra, suit is of the year 2008. Therefore, learned trial Court shall dispose of the said suit, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably with a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J February 16, 2023 Note: Furnish C.C. today. B/o.PN/GMS