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
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
2018 (2) ALD 82 (SC)
KL,J
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
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
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
