Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pathakunta Kamala vs Pathakunta Narayana Reddy on 12 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.S.No.1089 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
24) 12.02.2024 AVRB, J
The pleadings part of the judgment could
be dictated in the present appeal suit along
with connected Appeal Suit No.1104 of 2018.
While perusing the record to complete
the dictation to prepare a judgment, it is found
that there are three plaintiffs and five
defendants in O.S.No.147 of 2009. The plaintiff
Nos.1 to 3 were no other than the wife and
children of the first defendant. The second
defendant/Pathakunta Gurava Reddy was no
other than father-in-law of first plaintiff being
the father of first defendant.
It is borne out from the evidence that
during the pendency of the suit, defendant
Nos.1 and 2 died. The learned Additional
District Judge was conscious of the factum of
death of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as reflected in
the judgment, but as verified from the cause
title, there was no entry in the original plaint
about the factum of the death of defendant
Nos.1 and 2 during the pendency of the suit.
2
Even in the judgment also in the cause title,
there was no mention about the death of
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Even as verified from
the docket sheet pertaining to O.S.No.147 of
2009, it was evident that defendant Nos.1 and
2 remained exparte. The fact remained is that
the plaintiffs appears to have not
communicated to the Court about the factum of
death of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Whenever a
party to the suit died during the pendency of
the suit, the factum of death should be
reflected in the cause title. Neither cause tile in
the original plaint nor the cause tile in the
judgment discloses about the factum of death
of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Even in the
memorandum of grounds of appeal also there is
no whisper that defendant Nos.1 and 2 died
during the pendency of the suit. The facts and
circumstances are such that still the names of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the original plaint,
cause title of the judgment and the cause title
in the memorandum of grounds appeal are
continuing as if they are alive. The manner in
which the parties pursued the suit, O.S.No.147
of 2009 without intimating about the factum of
death of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not in
accordance with law.
As the appeal is nothing but continuing
the suit, this Court is desiring to give
3
opportunity to the parties even at this stage to
make a mention in the cause title of the original
plaint about the death of defendant Nos.1 and 2
and further in the original memorandum of
grounds of appeal about the death of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The matter in the
present form cannot be disposed.
Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.147 of 2009 are directed to make
necessary incorporations in the cause title of
the original plaint about the death of defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and further the appellants in
A.S.No.1089 of 2018 who are no other than the
plaintiffs before the learned Additional District
Judge are directed to make necessary
incorporations in the memorandum of grounds
of appeal in A.S.No.1089 of 2018 about the
factum of death of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Hence, delete the matter under the
caption of "Reserved for Judgment".
The Registry is directed to allow the
concerned counsel to make necessary
incorporations pursuant to the order of this
Court in the original plaint.
Further the Registry shall also permit the
counsel for the appellants in the present appeal
suit to carryout necessary incorporations in the
memorandum of grounds of appeal about the
factum of death of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Post the matter before appropriate Bench
having the provision as per roster within two
(02) weeks from this day.
_________
AVRB, J
Note:
PGR
