Telangana High Court
Katuri Venkateshwar Rao Died vs V.L.Sarojini Devi Died on 11 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.1548 and 2400 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1548 and 2400 of 2023 are
filed assailing the common the order, dated 14.10.2022, passed by
the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in
I.A.No.736 and 735 of 2020 in A.S.No.251 of 2016, respectively.
2. By the impugned common order, the application filed to
bring the LRs of appellant No.1 on record and the application filed
to condone the delay in filing the said LR application are dismissed
by the First Appellate Court.
3. Heard Sri Md. Sanaullah Farhan, learned counsel for the
revision petitioners and Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for
respondents.
4. The revision petitioners are appellants and respondents
herein are respondents in the appeal.
5. The petitioners filed the appeal aggrieved by the judgment
and decree dated 07.09.2016 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the Appeal,
respondent No.1 expired and hence, the petitioners filed an
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1548 &
2400 of 2023
application vide IA.No.731 of 2020 to bring the LRs of the
deceased-appellant No.1 on record and IA.No.733 of 2020 to
condone the delay of 1095 days in filing the said LR application.
While the said applications-IA.Nos.731 and 733 of 2020 were
pending adjudication, the petitioners again filed two more
applications vide IA.Nos.735 of 2020 seeking to condone the delay
in filing the LR petition and IA.No.736 of 2020 to bring the LRs of
deceased appellant No.1 on record. The petitioners also filed an
application in IA.No.732 of 2020 seeking to permit the General
Power of Attorney Holder of appellant No.1 to represent the latter
in the suit. However, the said application was dismissed on
14.10.2022. It is also pertinent to note that on the very same day,
IA.Nos.731 and 733 of 2020 were also dismissed as not pressed.
Further, by order of even date, IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 were
also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, which is under
challenge in the present Revision.
6. In the impugned common order, the First Appellate Court
has observed that the petitioners have not properly explained the
inordinate delay of 1092 days caused in filing the application and
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1548 &
2400 of 2023
that no valid reasons have been assigned by the petitioners. The
First Appellate Court has further observed that appellant No.1 is
represented by appellant No.2 and appellant No.2 is represented by
GPA holder-A.Dayanand and since the application seeking to
permit the GPA holder to represent appellant No.1 is dismissed, the
affidavit filed by the said GPA holder cannot be looked into.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said applications by the First
Appellate Court, the present Revision Petitions are filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the First
Appellate Court failed to consider the factual background of the
case as well as merits of the applications and has erroneously
dismissed the applications. He further submitted that the First
Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that memo disclosing
the death of appellant No.1 was filed only on 09.12.2019 and
immediately, application to bring the LRs of the deceased appellant
No.1 was filed by the petitioners and therefore, there is no lapse on
the part of the petitioners in filing the LR application and this
aspect was not properly construed by the First Appellate Court. He
further submitted that the First Appellate Court has given undue
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1548 &
2400 of 2023
weightage to the dismissal of the application in IA.No.732 of 2020
and has come to erroneous conclusion and finally, the learned
counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petitions.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners initially, filed an application vide
IA.Nos.731 and 733 of 2020 and while the said applications were
pending consideration, the petitioners have again filed two more
applications in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 seeking the same
reliefs as were sought for in IA.Nos.731 and 733 of 2020 and as
such, the later applications in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 are not
maintainable.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
since IA.No.732 of 2020 was dismissed, the GPA holder has no
locus standi to represent appellant No.2 and swear the affidavit on
his behalf and as such, the applications in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of
2020 filed by the GPA holder are also liable to be dismissed, as
was rightly done by the First Appellate Court by the impugned
common order.
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1548 &
2400 of 2023
10. Perusal of record would disclose that both the applications-
IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 have been filed by the GPA holder of
appellant No.2 pending consideration of IA.Nos.731 and 733 of
2020, which were earlier filed for the very same reliefs.
11. It is trite to note that IA.No.732 of 2020 filed seeking to
accord permission to the GPA holder to represent appellant No.2 in
the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by order dated
14.10.2022 and the said order is subsisting since the same has not
been challenged. Therefore, the GPA holder is not competent to
represent appellant No.2 and swear the affidavit on his behalf and
hence, the applications-IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020 filed by the
said GPA holder are not maintainable. In the above factual
background of the case, there is no necessity to delve into the
merits of the applications in IA.Nos.735 and 736 of 2020. In such
an event, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioners need not be adverted to.
12. Further, it is relevant to note that the petitioners have also
not filed an application to set aside the abatement.
LNA, J
CRP.Nos.1548 &
2400 of 2023
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and the
impugned common order warrants no interference by this Court.
14. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. Interim order, dated 18.08.2023, passed by this Court
granting stay, which was extended from time to time, shall stand
vacated. No costs.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:11.06.2025
dr
