Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pathakunta Kamala vs Challa Satyanarayana Murthy on 12 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.S.No.1104 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
23) 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.1089 of 2018.
While perusing the record to complete
the dictation to prepare the judgment, it is
found that the present appeal suit is against the
judgment, dated 23.11.2017 in O.S.No.200 of
2005, on the file of XI Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The present
appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.200 of
2005. It was brought in evidence that the third
defendant-Pathakunta Narayana Reddy, who
was the husband of the first defendant, is no
more, but in the cause title of the plaint, his
name is continuing without there being any
incorporation about the factum of death of third
defendant. The judgment reflects that the
learned Additional District Judge was conscious
of the factum of death of the third defendant-
Pathakunta Narayana Reddy.
2
On further verification of the suit docket,
it appears that I.A.No.65 of 2010 was allowed
on 04.03.2011 and the matter was coming for
steps against the third defendant. On
13.04.2011 a memo was filed on behalf of the
plaintiffs stating that the deceased third
defendant is only proforma party and there is
no need to add any legal heirs. The learned
Additional District Judge did not ensure to allow
the plaintiffs to make necessary incorporations
about the factum of death of third defendant
and that there were no legal heirs.
When a particular party died during the
pendency of the suit, the factum of death
should have been recorded in the cause title.
The same should have been reflected in the
judgment also. Unfortunately, those things
were not carried out before the learned
Additional District Judge. Surprisingly, in the
memorandum of grounds of appeal also the
appellant, who was no other than the wife of
third defendant, as first defendant, did not
consider to show the name of Pathakunta
Narayana Reddy as died during the pendency of
the suit. The cause title in the plaint, the cause
title in the judgment of the learned Additional
District Judge and the cause title in the
memorandum of grounds of appeal are such
that the third defendant is shown as alive. This
3
type of irregularities should not be carried
further. This Court is not intending to dispose
the matter without rectifying the defects in the
cause title. As the appeal is nothing but
continuing the suit even at this stage also
parties can be permitted to make necessary
incorporations about the above.
Hence, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.200 of
2005, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein, are directed to make necessary
incorporations in the cause title of the original
plaint which is available before this Court about
the factum of death of the third defendant and
that there is no need to add any legal
representatives pursuant to the order of the
learned Additional District Judge, dated
13.04.2011.
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 appellant in the present appeal
suit to carryout necessary incorporations in the
memorandum of grounds of appeal about the
factum of death of fifth respondent herein/
Pathakunta Narayana Reddy.
Post the matter before appropriate Bench
having the provision as per roster within two
(02) weeks from this day.
_________
AVRB, J
PGR
