Unknown vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh :: ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3761 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATHI

                   APPEAL SUIT No.412 OF 2018

                        PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                  OFFICE
        DATE                          ORDER
No.                                                                   NOTE
27.   31.07.2023 AVRB, J:
                               I.A. No.1 OF 2018

                       As evident from the certified copy of
                 the judgment in O.S. No.104 of 1998, dated
                 26.04.2006,    the   plaintiffs   are   1)   Smt.
                 Pediredla Eswaramma and 2) Smt.Pediredla
                 Kumari     alias     Ramana       Kumari     and
                 defendants     are     1)     Smt.      Pediredla
                 Krishnaveni, 2) Smt. Pediredla Venkata
                 Lakshmi and 3) Smt. Pediredla Lakshmi
                 alias Varalakshmi.

                       The Appeal is filed challenging the
                 aforesaid judgment, which was disposed of
                 by way of common judgment along with
                 O.S. No.9 of 2002 on 26.04.2006. The
                 present Appeal is filed by the 2nd plaintiff
                 therein namely Smt. Pediredla Kumari @
                 Ramana Kumari showing Smt. Pediredla
                 Krishnaveni (D-1) as 1st respondent, Smt.

Pediredla Venkata Lakshmi (D-2) as 2nd respondent and Smt. Pediredla Lakshmi alias Vara Lakshmi (D-3), who is died, as 3rd respondent and Smt. Pediredla Eswaramma (1st plaintiff) as 4th respondent herein respectively. From the cause title of AVRB,J AS No.412/2018

the judgment in O.S. No.104 of 1998, it is clear that nowhere it was shown as Smt. Pediredla Lakshmi @ Varalakshmi (D-3) died. So it appears that subsequent to the decree in O.S. No.104 of 1998, Smt. Pediredla Lakshmi @ Varalakshmi might have been died.

The Appeal is filed against a dead person i.e., respondent No.3 (D-3).

As evident from the proceedings sheet, once there was a representation made by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.3 herein died and he seeks time to bring her legal representatives. It is not born out from the Memorandum of Appeal that the appellant brought the legal representatives of 3rd respondent (D-3). So, pursuing the Appeal, especially the delay condonation petition, without bringing the legal representatives of the 3rd respondent, is nothing but irregular. Under the circumstances, the appellant is directed, firstly, to take necessary steps to bring the legal representatives of the 3rd respondent (D-3), without which the Appeal and this Application cannot be continued.

Hence, delete the matter from the caption 'for pronouncement of order' and list AVRB,J AS No.412/2018

after four (4) weeks along with Appeal Suit No.508 of 2006.

____________ AVRB, J Dsh