Dismissed

Dhanala Peraiah v. Dhanala Venkateswarlu

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023CRP/1364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Telangana High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order setting aside a review application in a property partition suit filed by a deceased plaintiff. The court held that the suit was validly instituted before the plaintiff's death and the trial court correctly allowed the single review application.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 1364 of 2023 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dhanala Peraiah Vs Dhanala Venkateswarlu — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^338s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1364 OF 2023

¶7

Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, to set aside the order dated 13.03.2023 made in I A No 7 of 2023 in O.S No. S of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dhanala Peraiah, S/o.Chencharah. Age 63 Yrs, occ Business, R/o.H.No 4-2'151/2, Srinivas Nagar. Khammam City and District

¶10

...REV|SlON PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1/DEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Dhanala Venkateswarlu, (Dred)

¶13

Dhanala Subbamma, Wo Late Venkateswarlu, Age 56 Yrs_ Occ Housewife, R/o.H. No 4-2-15113. Srinivas Nagar Khammam City and District.

¶14

Dhanala Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o Late Venkateswarlu. Age 37 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o.H.No 4-2-15113, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District.

¶15

Pasam (Dhanala) Padma, Wo Ramesh and D/o,late Venkateswarlu, age 40 Yrs, Occ Business, R/o H No 4 2-150l3l2lN1l2/'1, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶17

Dhanala Atchamma, Wo.Peraiah, Age.53 Yrs, occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.4-2151/2, Srinivas Nagar,Khammam City and District.

¶18

Dhanala Ramesh, S/o Peraiah Age.35 Yrs, Occ.Employee. R/o.13 Clarke Street, Shepparton. Victorra 3630 Australia, Permanent address H.No.4- 2- 151/2, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District

¶19

-Dhanala Padma @ Yedlapalli Padma, , Wo.Satish Chandra, Age.38 yrs, Occ. Housewife. C/o Yadiapalli.Venkataramaiah, M.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam & Mandal. Khammam Drstrict

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶21

(Respondents No. 5 to 7 are not necessary parties to this CRP)

¶22

|.A.NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of orders in LA.No. 7 of 2023 in O.S.No 5 of 2021 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam dated 13-03-2023 pending disposal of CRP.

¶24

|.A.NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

Between:

¶26

Dhanala Venkateswarlu, (Died)

¶27

Dhanala Subbamma, Wo Late Venkateswarlu, Age 56 Yrs. Occ Housewife, R/o.H. No 4-2-15113, Srinivas Nagar. Khammam City and District.

¶28

Dhanala Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu. Age 37 Yrs, Occ Business. R/o. H. No.4-2-15'l13, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District.

¶29

Pasam (Dhanala) Padma, Wo.Ramesh and D/o,late Venkateswarlu, age 40 Yrs, Occ Business, Rio.H.No 4-2-150l3l2lN\l2/1, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and Districl

¶30

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 to 4

¶31

AND

¶32

Dhanala Perarah, S/o.Chenchaiah, Age 63 Yrs, occ Business, R/o.H.No 4- 2-15112, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District.

¶33

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶34

Dhanala Atchamma, Wo.Peraiah, Age.53 Yrs, occ.Housewife, R/o H No.4 2-15113, Srinivas Nagar,Khammam City and Diskict.

¶35

Dhanala Ramesh, S/o.Peraiah, Age.35 Yrs, Occ.Employee. R/o.13 Clarke Street, Shepparton, Victoria 3630 Australia, Permanent address H.No.42-15113, Srinivas Nagar, Khammam City and District

¶36

Dhanala Padma @ Yedlapalli Padma, , Wo.Satish Chandra, Age.38 yrs, Occ. Housewife. C/o.Yadiapalli,Venkataramaiah, M.Venkatayapalem' village, Khammam & Mandal, Khammam District

¶37

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶38

(Respondents 2 to 4 a(e not necessary parties in this l.A. as they are also shown as not necessary parties in this Revision)

¶39

Petitron under Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased in the interest of lustice to vacate the interim orders passed in l.A. No 1 of 2023 C R P No.1364 of 2023 and to dismiss the Revision Petition

¶40

¶41

I i t I

¶42

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri KIRAN PALAKURTI

¶43

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 Sri SRINIVAS EMANI

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.1364 OF 2023

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

The present revision petition is filed seeking to ser aside the order dated 13.03.2023 made in l-A.No.7 ol 2023 in O.S.No.S of 2O2l on the Ille ol the Principal District Judgc, Khammam.

¶48

The respondent No- 1/plaintift liled O.S.No.5 of 2O2l under Order XX Rule i 8 of Civil Procedure Codc (for short 'C.P.C.') seeking partition and separate possession ol tl'rc suit schedule property. In the said O.S., plaintifT Nos.2 to 4 lllcd I.A-No.7 of 2023 under Order XLVII Rule 1 rezrcl rvith Section I 51 of C.P.C., praying to revieu, or recall the cornmon order datcd 08.1),.2022 made in I.A.Nos.3, 4 ancl 5 ol 202 I in O.S.No.5 of 2021.

¶49

The petitioner No.3 in I.A.No.7 of 20.23 c:ont-cnderl thar his ltrther Dhanala Venkal"eswarlu Iilcd sliiL on .]0.06-2020 bv dcpositir-rg the Court fee amourrt of Rs.2O07 ro rhc Court fee accounL. lJowevcr, due to Covid I 9 panclcrnic rcst rir.tions, as all

¶50

stis. l

¶51

¶52

C. R.{'. No 136.+ of lof.'}

¶53

suits were hled through^{onlinemodc,the plaint in the said suit} and other relevant^{papers wcre submittedtl.rrough otllincmodc.} However, the said^{plaint was returned n'ith objectiofr'Iy'o} urgencA. Cause of actiorl^{arose tu-toyearsback. Hence' retunted''} The said return endorsement^{was senL throughe mail, duly} signed by the Principai^{District Judge,Khammam.The samc} was resubmitted by Dhanala^{Venkatcsn'arlrton O'2 07.2O2O bti} explainrng the urgency, but^{the same \ rils agalnrelllrnedorlLhe} same day with an endorsement^{'no urgencarnatTe orLt. sirtce iqht} of parlition orose one geor back.^{Henceout of order srejected"} While so, on 04.O7.2O2O plaintiff^{No.1 cticd. As suctr' Icrrrned} counsel for plaintiffs resubmitted the suit^{along u ith peLition} under Section 148 of C.P.C.,^{and the samc was allou'ed u'ith} costs uide I.A.No.1 of 2O2l and the suit^{u'as numbercclers} O.S.No.5 of 2O2l on07.Ol.2O2l.^{As such, the datc ol instttution} of date shali be treated as 3O.O6.2O20^{on rvl'rii:h clitit: lhc} plaintiff No. 1 was alive.

¶54

Thereafter, proposed plaintifi Nos.2 to 4 filcd^I.A.No.3ol 2O2 i under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. [-A.No.^{1 til- ]O2l} under Order XXII Rule 9 of C.I'].C.. and [.A.No-5^{ol 202 Itrncicr} Order XXII Rule 3 of C.P.C., and thc same^{r'r'creclismisscclrlt't}

¶55

SKS,J C. R. P No. I 364 of 2023

¶56

¶57

the ground that bv thc d.ite ol filing o[ sr.rit, plaintiff No.1 died which is an error apparent on the lacc of rccord. Aggrieved thereby, I.A.No.7 of 2023 rvas filed pral,ing to review the said order-

¶58

On hearing either side and on going through the material placed on record, the trial Court uirle order dated 13.03.2023 allowed LA.No.7 of 2023 setting asirle thc orders passed in I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 ol 2021.

¶59

Aggrieved thcreb1., thc prcsenr rerision petition is hled stating that the order ol thc trial CourL $'.1s passed basing on the assumptions and presumptions ancl that the [rial Court failed to consider the lact that Lhe responclcnts herein fai]ed to make out grounds for rcvieu' o[ ordels. l.'lrrther, the trial Court failed to consider LhaL onc single rer.icn'application was hled for review of orders passed ln three inter-loclrtor1' applications and the same is not pcrmissible. The trial Court ought to have appreciated Lhe [ex: t th.rt thc sLrit rr':rs nurtrbcrcd aftcr the death of Dhanala Vcnkertesu.arlu plarinLill, rhcrclirre, filing of suit does has nothnrg to tkr u'ith lllc aspccr ol- britrqing the LRs., on

¶60

SKS,J C. R.P.No 1364 oI2023

¶61

¶62

record. Therefore, the irnpugncd order crlated 13.03.2023 is liable to be set aside

¶63

Heard Sri Kiran Palakurti, lcarned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Dmani, learned counsel for respondents.

¶64

Learned counsel lor petitioner rvould submit that suit against a dead per-son is nol maintainable as the sole plaintilf died on 04.O7 .2O2O and rhe suit u as numbered on 07 .Ol.2O2l, as such, the impugnecl ordcr passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.7 of 2023 is lizrblr: Lo L)c scr asidc. Therefore, prayed this Court to set asidc thc rmpugncd order dated 13.09.2023, allowing the presenl rcl isi,rrr pctirion.

¶65

Per contra, lcarned <:oLrnsel lor respondcnts would submit that as the suit rlas initiallv filcd bv the plaintilf on 30.06.2020 i.e., the period r,"'hc n he u'as alivc, rhe said date can be taken into consideration in vrcu ol'the Jrrdgments of the Hon,b1e Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Ammal Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne Vs. Pyrotek India private

¶66

'^zoot 1sy^{scc .r:t}

¶67

SKS,J C.R.P.No.1364 of 2O23

¶68

¶69

Limited and Others2 u,hich revolve around the subject of hling ol surt by deacl person. He further submitted that during the surge of Covid 19 pandemic, the Hon'l:le Supreme Courl excluded the penod from 15.03.2020 trll 28.O2.2022 for computing the limitation in hling petitions/ applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings under the gcneral lau, of limitation and other special laws. As such, prar..cd the Court [o dismiss the present revision petition as there i,rre no inllrmiLies in the order of the trial Court.

¶70

[{aving regard to thc rival submissions made and on going through thc material placed on record, it is noted that the main conLelr[ion ol thc lcarned counsel lor petitioner is that suit filecl bv clead person is not maintainable, as such, it cannot be numbered. Hou,cver, on perusal of the material placed on record it is noticccl th:1t Ihe surit was initially hled by plaintiff on 30.Ob.2020 rLncl lrc die d on 04.O7.2O2O. Therefore, in view of the judgnrcnt o1' the lJon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases3 it can be said that rhe suiL u'i,rs institutcc,l on 30.06.2O20. The relevant paragraph No..r,c,,) rc; rcls lrs Llrtlcr-.

¶71

-lr)-l,l^{S(i( l)r,i.rn, S( lll;} ,lII I I SL'i r)l

¶72

stis,.l

¶73

C.R.P.No I 364 of 2023

¶74

¶75

-39. As \c ha!,. alrcad\ nored In reaching thrs conclusion, lrght can be dra$n hom lcgal marims. Legal maxims are refelTcd to rn Bhoral Kalc lltt rtrut Dartoder KaLe !. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2OO4 SCC ICu) 391 iapani Sahoo lJapani Sahoo v. Channra Sekhar ttta)(ottlt. lzt)O t-l 7 SCC 394 : (2OO7) 3 SCC (Cri) 3881 al].d Vanko Rodhamanohan lvonka Radhamdnohai v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (rqq3l .lsCC.1 r993 SCC(Cri) 57 I I . The object of rhe crimnat la{, rs lo punrsh l)erpetraLors of crimc. This is in tune $ith the well krro$u legal oraxrrD nulluln lenlpus aut lodts occltrnt regr, whrch mcars that a .r Lrnc ncvcr dres. At tlle same time, it is also the pohcv ol l.rs ro assrst rhe vrgjlant and not t}Ie sleepy. This is expresscd in rhc Larur rn:r\rn ttultlantbus et non dormientfuus, iura subueirilnL Crrirprr, X-\l^(lrl,C w.hrch providcs limrtatlolr period for certarn t\txs ol .)ll.)r.cs lor whxrh lcsscr sentence is provided draqs stlllpor r ft.nr Lhls lraxrm BuL, even certain offences such as Sectron .lE+ or 16: Ii,C. \hrch have lesser punishment may have serious socrill Lonsequcnccs The provision ts, therefore, made for (urdon:rrron oi dcla. 'freatung date of filing of complarnt or date of rr)rLrllrou oi procccdrngs as rhe re]cvant date for computrrg Lltrrairon u rlcr ScctroD 468 of thc Code is suppo ed by the Iegal lrL\i r n.i,r: .ar,re emnem grauabil wllic}l means that the act of coLrl shall prctu.hce no man- It bears repetition to state that rhe .our t s rna( rron rn Takrng coBnizance i e. court's inaction in appl,ung rtrrr)(l to rh. sllspccted olfence should not be allowed to cause prctlr{lr.. r. .t drhgenr complainant. Chapter XXXVI thus presents rhu rnt.rJ,la\ la tll('sc thrce legal maxims. The provisions of thrs Ch.LI)rc, lr)\r.\cr. :uc not rnlerpretd solely on the basis of thcse mn\rusⁱ lr(-, o,rlr scrvc as gurding principles".

¶76

I1. FurLhcr. Lhollqh learned counsel for petitioncr contendc.l plaintifi dir:cl orr O+.O7.2O2O but the petition to bring his lcsal

¶77

SKS,J c.R^{P.i-o. t 364 .)f 2023}

I I I

-7

heirs on^{record wasfiled on 27 'O3 2O2l with inorrlinate delay'} therc^{is no force in the saidcontention as the Hon'LrleSupreme} Courf^{excluded the period from 15'032O20 tlll 2a 02 2022fot} computing^the limitation in fiting petitions/ applications /^{suits/ appeals / all other quasi proceedi} ngs under the^{gcneral law of limitationand otherspecial laws'} In addition to that,^{though learned counselfor petiLioncr contended that} or-rl-r'^{one review applicationwas filedchallenging the orders} passed^{by the trial Court in three different applicatrons'having} regard^{to the judgment rendered by thc Hon'ble Supreme Court} in Perumon^{Bhagvathy(supra) this Court is ol the opinion that} onc review^{applicationis sufficient to reviervthc common ordcr} cla.ted^{08. | 1.2022 passedby the trial Courrin t A Nos 3' 4 and} -: ol 2O2l in O'S'No 5 of^{2O2l The relevant paragr:rphNo'22} rcads^{as under:}

¶82

"22. we^{accordingtyallow this appeal and sct asrdcLhc(ndcrsdated} 5 10 2oOS^{ol tieHighCourt disEissng thc thrcc :ti'phcalro s ertd} dre consequeotlal^{order dated 5_10 2005closurg Lhe aPoralas} havmg^{abatedThe delay is condone'i' AbalemcLlt Is s'L asrtlclllr} legal^{representativesol the deceasedsccondt'\p')rnlerrliiltlLC} sccond^{appeala.re permitted to bc brotrghton rc('L'l lllrc'nrs' lrllc} olihcmemorand\rmolsecondapPe;rlbetoretllcllL!'l(('ullsll'li)' nmcnded^{TheHlgh Courtwillno$ procetdro ll"tr tlr(;II)!)''II ulr} ,r, r'ils^{ln actordancewrth laN'Partl'slo Lr"r Ilr' iI '\lt'' r'rt" 'ist</sup>}

¶83

SKS..' ( R.P.No t36'r^of10-23

¶84

¶85

ln^{the light of the above' it can be said that there ts no} illegality^{committedby the trial Court in impurgncd ordcrdated} 13.03.2023^{made in I A No'7 ol 2023 in O S No.5 of 202 I and} therearenomeritsinthepresentrevisionpetition.Accordingly, the Civil^{Revision Petition is dismissed Thcrcshall bc uo order} as to the^costs

¶86

As a sequel,^{miscellaneouspetitions pcncling' i[:rnr" shall}

¶87

stand closed

¶88

sd,.Pctru+f$iHE3l'fHia

/ffRUE^COPY'/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{District Judge' Khammam.} 2 One CC^{to Sri KIRANPALAKURTI' Advocate [OPUCI} 2 OnC CC^{tO STi SRINIVAS EMANI, AdVOCAIEIOPUC]} 4 Two^{CD CoPies} \v

NJI]

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211212023

ORDER

CRP.No.1364 of 2023

1 HE Sr4
(
oo 0 I JA l! 2024 z
o
*
o I *
aapATa.r-\f