Dismissed

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others v. Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi and 11 others

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023CRP/1969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial Court's order allowing an application to implead the legal heirs of a deceased defendant in a partition suit. The Court held that despite the late filing relative to the death date, the COVID-19 pandemic period could be excluded for limitation computation, rendering the trial Court's order lawful.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition No. 1969 of 2021 is dismissed. The impleadment of the legal heirs is upheld.

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others Vs Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi… — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1969 OF 2021

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Docket Order dated 04.03.2021 passed in l.A.No.23 of 2021 in OS.No.23 of 2011 on the file of Court of the ll Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others, (Died) Per LRs

¶9

Kothakonda Rajeshwari, W/o. Late Narayana, Age 50 years, Occ Household,

¶10

Kothakonda Anitha, D/o. Late Narayana, Age 30 years, Occ Household,

¶11

4- Kothakonda Mamatha, D/o. Late Narayana, Age 28 years, Occ Household,

¶12

Kothakonda Harish, S/o. Late Narayana, Age 26 years, Occ Business,

¶13

Kothakonda Sridhar, S/o. Late Narayana, Age 24 years, Occ Business,

¶14

All are Rl/o H.No. 4-121, Hanumanwada locality, Dharmapuri Proper and Ir,'landal, Jagtiyal District.

¶15

...Petitioners/LRs of Defendant No.4

¶16

AND

¶17

1 Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi and 11 others, Wo. Narasaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ Tailoring, Rl/o. H.No. 48-25, Mutyala Pochammawada locality, Peddapally proper and mandal' Jagtiyal District

¶18

.....Respondenupraintiff

¶19

Kothakonda Eshwaramma, W/o. Late Rajaiah or Raju Narsaiah (Died).

¶20

Gatla Asha @ Kamala, Wo. Janardhan Age 50 years Occ House Hold Rl/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal District.

¶21

Kothakonda Gangu Bai Raju @ Gangamma, Wo Late Rajaiah or Raju Narsaiah Age 66 years Occ Household Rl/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal District.

¶22

State Bank of Hyderabad Branch, Dharmapuri Represented by its Branch Manager Rl/o. H.No. 4-197, Opp Bus stand Gate, Dharmapuri proper and tv1andal, Jagtiyal District.

¶23

Eligeti Laxmi, Wo. Swamy Age 56 years, Occ House hold, R/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal District.

¶24

Nadimetla Jamuna, w/o Shankar Age Sg years Occ House hold, R/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyat bistrict.

¶25

Pothu Saradha, Wo. Venkatesh Age 53 years Occ House hold R/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal bistrict_

¶26

Andhe Lalitha, Wo. Srinu Ag_e_ 47 years Occ House hold Rio Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal DistriCt.

¶27

10.Asam Latha, W/o..Cgnggn,l14gg 58 years Occ House hotd Rl/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal District.

¶28

Bommidi Sarojana, w/o Lachanna Age 56 years Occ House hold R:/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagliyal District.

¶29

1 2. The. Panchayat Secretary, Gram panchayat, Dharmapuri, R/o Dharmapuri proper and mandal, Jagtiyal District.

¶30

(Respondents No. 2 to 12 are not necessary parties)

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

lA No: 1 OF 2021

¶33

Petition under Section r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.S.No. 23 of 2011 on the file of ll Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial pending disposal of the C.R.p.

¶34

IA No: 1 OF 2022

¶35

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 11.12.2021 in l.A. No.1 of 2021 in CRp No.1 969 of 2021 till the disposal of this CRp.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI E. VENKATA REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶40

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.t969 OF 2O2t

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.O3.2O21 passed in I.A.No.23 of 2O2l in O.S.No.23 of 201l on rhe file of the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

¶43

Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff filed O.S.No.2 3 of 2071 seeking partilion and separate possession. During the pendency of O.S.No.23 of 2Ol1 on 05.05.2O20 defendant No.4 by name Kothakonda Narayana died, leaving behind him, his wife, rwo daughters and two sons as his legal heirs, who are proposed defendant Nos.13 to 17. Therefore, in the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.23 of 2O2L under Order XXII, Rule 4, Section 151 of C.P.C., read with Rule 2g of Civil Rules of practice (for short 'C.R.PJ praying to bring respondent Nos. 13 to 17 on record as defendalt Nos. 13 to lZ io O.S.No.23 of 20 11.

¶44

In I.A.No.23 of 2021 a counter affidavit was hled by the proposed defendant Nos. 13 to 17 stating that though plaintiff

¶45

SKS,J C.R. P.No.1969 of 2021

¶46

¶47

was aware of the death of delendant No.4, she^{has not fi1edthe} petition to bring the legal heirs on record within^{the limitation} period as the defendant No.4 died on 05.05.2020^{but the} petition to bring his legal heirs on record was^{hled on} 07 .Ol .2021. It was further stated that subsequent^{to memo} dated 14.09.202O filed by learned counsel^{for ctefendantNo' 4} informing about the death ol defendant No.4,^{plaintiff filed} LA.No.23 of 2O2l but the same was at belated^{stage and also} barred by limitation, as such, contended that^{I.A.No.23of 2O2l} is not maintainable.

¶48

After hearing eithcr side, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.23 of 2O2l observing that if proposed defendant^Nos.13 to 17 are impleaded as defendant Nos.13 to 17 in t1.e^{suit, no} prejudice would be caused to other defendants. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed by proposed defendant Nos. 13 to 17.

¶49

Heard Sri E.Venkata Reddy, Iearned counsel for petitioners. No representation on behalf of respondents.

¶50

SKS,J C.R.P-No- 1969 of 2O21

¶51

¶52

l,earned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court ought to have dismissed I.A.No.23 of 2O2I liled to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.4 on record as defendant Nos.13 to 17, since the plaintiff failed to file petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay as the defendant No.4 died on 05.05.2020 but I.A.No.23 of 2O2I was liled on 07.O1.2O21, in other words, the petition was not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date ol death. As such, the petition is barred by limitation and was hled at a belated stage. Therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order dated O4.O3.2O21 allowing the present revision petition.

¶53

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, it is noted that aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.O3.2021 made in I.A.No.23 of 2O2l impleading ttre legal heirs of defendant No.4 as defendant Nos.13 to 17 in O.S.No.23 of 2OLl this revision petition is filed contending that the said I.A., was barred by limitation and was hled at belated stage.

¶54

SKS,J C.R-P.No- 1969 of 2O2l

¶55

¶56

On going through the material placed on record it is noted that defendant No.4 died on 05.05.2O2O and I.A.No.23 of 2O2l was lrled on O7.01.2021 i.e., 247 days after the death of defendant No.4. However, at this stage it is pertinent to note that during the surge of Covid- 19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court excluded the period from 15.O3.2020 till 28.02.2022 for computing the limitation in frling petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/ all other quasi proceedings under the general law of limitation and other special laws.

¶57

In view thereof, even if there is delay in filing I.A.No.23 of 2O2l having regard to the fact that the period from 15.03.2020 till 2a.O2.2O22 can be excluded for computing the limitation, it can be said that there is no illegality committed by the triai Court in allowing I.A.No.23 of 2O2I in O.S.No.23 ol 2011 and the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that defendant Nos. 13 to 17 who are legal heirs of defendan[ No.4 are also entitled to their

¶59

SKS,J

¶60

C.R.P.No. 1969 of 2O2 t

¶61

¶62

share as O.S.No.23 of 2O I t is filed for partition. There shall be no order as to costs

¶63

As a sequel, miscellaneous pe titions pending, if any, shall

¶64

stand closed

¶65

SD/- V.HARI PRASAD ASSISTANPREGISTRAR Vr' SECTION OFFICER

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

To,

¶68

The ll Addt District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial 2. One CC to SRt. E VENKATA ReDOf RAvocaie loPUC]

!,. #" fwo CD Copies

HlGl-I COURT

DATED:2211212023

i)
q
r-.)
2 7 F;B l:-'-i
,.t
"tt\ \i
"'- ;r'

¶74

ORDER

¶75

CRP.No.1969 of 2021

¶76

DlSMlsshlo^{TFIE clP} i-,i Hau,l-^cos|'l

¶77

d
(g*v
\a ""9'

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others v. Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi and 11 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others v. Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi and 11 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Janardhan Reddy and another Vs P. Narsing Rao and 59 others

Smt. Kancharakuntla Jyothi Vs Kancharakuntla Trinath Reddy

Naseem Begum Vs Siddiq Ali Khan

Pammi Sreedharachary Vs Allapati Shyamala Devi

G. Rakesh Goud Vs Chilimila Rajaiah

Dhanala Peraiah Vs Dhanala Venkateswarlu