Dismissed

Arelli Sailaja v. Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

Telangana HC5 Dec 2024CRP/3248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions challenging docket orders that allowed the legal representatives of a deceased defendant to be impleaded and condoned delay. The Court held that the affidavit showed sufficient grounds for non-appearance under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and that the plaintiff was duty-bound to bring the necessary parties on record.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arelli Sailaja Vs Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^340s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 3248 3269 3293 AND 3299 0F 2024

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3248 0F 2024

¶8

Petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 05-01-2024 made in LA. No. 8 of 2024 in o.S, No. 125 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Arelli Sarlaja, Wo. Subhash, Aged 37 years, Occ. Tailor, R/o. Janapaka Village, Gesugonda [r/la nda l, War-ngal Disirict

¶11

...Petitioner / Respondent / Plaintiff in All the CRPs

¶12

AND

¶13

Nagapuri Dasharatham @ Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

¶14

Nagapuri @fogaku Nirmala, Wo. Late Dasharatham, Aged 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.'17-11-1 , Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal

¶15

Puli Krishnaveni, D/o Late Dasharatham, Wo. Venugopal, Aged 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.17-11-'1 , Ursu, Kareemablcj, Warlngal

¶16

Pillala Aruna, D/o. Late Dasharatham, Wo. Raju, Aged 48 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Guduru Village, Kamalapur Manda[ Hanamkonda District

¶17

Nagapuri @ Pogaku Revanth Kumar, S/o. Late Dasharatham, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No-17-11-'1, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal

¶18

Nagapuri @ Pogaku Naresh, S/o. Late Dasharatham, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.17-1'1-1, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal

¶19

... Respondents / Petitioners r,?iiiri"Jl _ Jl

¶20

Nagaquli Subhadra, Wo. Narayana, Aged 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.7-8, Janpak Village, Geesukonda Mandai, Warangal District

¶21

Ambala Sharada, Wo. Bixapathi, Aged 43 years, Occ. pan Shop, R/o. H.No.'l 1-1-'123, Labour Colony, Warangal

¶22

I Naoaouri Saibaba,^{S/o. Narayana, Aged33 years'OccHousewife'R/o'} il il;i:8,:;;p;f^{vitiJsece'esukondatvlandal, waransalDistrict}

¶23

10 Naoaouri Ramesh. Sio.^{Narayana, Aged32 yearsOcc Coolie' R/o H No 7-} ii,-l"u,ip,r virrjge,^{Geesuron,iaMandal, WarangaI District}

¶24

11 Devasani Rajaiah,^{S/o. Anantha Ramulu, Aged 68 years' Occ Business' R/o'} H. No.17-7-95,^{Ursu,Waranagal}

¶25

12 Devasani Samba^{lVlurthy,S/o. Rajaiah,Aged 55 years' Occ' Teacher'R/o'} H.No. 17-7-95,^{Ursu,Waranagal}

¶26

IJ Devasani Sriram^{t/urthy, S/o. Rajaiah,Aged55 years,OccTeacher'R/o'} H.No.¹ 7-7-95,^{Ursu,Waranagal}

¶27

14 Vaioari Sadalaxmi, Wo.^{Babu Rao, D/o. Devasarani Rajaiah, Aged46 years'} oid' H"r.;h"h,^{rtlo. tt.No.t6-1-702, sRR Thota, Warangal}

¶28

Macherla Sharada,^{Wo. Sambaiah, Aged58 years,Occ Household'Fl/o'} H.No.1 7-1 0-85, Ursu,^Warangal

¶29

lo Kota Sumantha,^{S/o. Venkataswamy,Aged39 years,Occ'Household' R/o'} ri.r.ro.be-r-:ze, lst^{Floor, Kakatiya Colony, Hanamkonda}

¶30

17 Kusama Sathish,^{S/o. Venkataswamy, Age 45 years, Occ Ex Corporator'} R/o. H. N o.1^{8-4- 159, Kareemabad. Warangal}

¶31

18 Samudrala Yakaswamy,^{S/o.Not known' Aged 45 years,OccBusiness' R/o'} #;il;;i; Nil;t;;,^{ofp rcinoswav Bar & Restuaiant (old),HunterRoad'} Warangal

¶32

19 Vanchanaoari Sammaiah,^{S/o, Kanakaiah, Aged 60 years,Occ Business'} R/o. H.No."17-4'140,^{Kareemabad, Warangal}

¶33

20 Gabbeta Venkata^{Narasaiah, S/o. Late Agaiah, Aged 62 years, OccRetd'} Ernploy"" R/o. H.No.^{17-0-359, Subhashanagar, Warangal}

¶34

(Respondents 7 to 20 not^{necessaryparties)}

¶35

... Res Po n d^e nts,,"i:i [fJ 3"#:

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶37

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto stay} all further^{proceedings ot o.s.125t2022 belorethe ll Addl. District Judgewarangal} pending disposal of the main^{Revision Petition.}

¶38

i:i.l

¶39

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3269 OF 2024

¶40

Petition under N1ricle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 05-0'1-2024 made in l.A. No. 1O of 2O24 in O.S. No. 125 oI 2OZ2 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶41

CIV|L REVISION PETITION NO: 3293 OF 2024

¶42

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 05-0'1-2024 made in l.A. No. 9 ot 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶44

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 stay all further proceedings of O.S. 12512022before the ll Addl. District Judge Warangal pending disposal of the main Revision Petition.

¶45

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3299 OF 2024

¶46

Petition under Anicb 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 05-01-2024 made in l.A. No. 11 ol 2024 in O.S. No. 125 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri S AV Ratnam in All the CRPs

¶48

- - Counsel for the Respondents :

¶49

The Court made the following Common Order :

¶50

THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA}

¶51

CIVIL REVI^{SION PETITION NOS.324832693293} AND 3299 0F 2024

¶52

Ms. S.A.V.RatrLzLm,^{learned counselfor the petitioner}

¶53

COMMON ORDER:

¶54

The subject matter of the^{present CivilRevisionPetitions} (C.R.Ps) are docket orders dated^{O5.O1.2O24passed by the ll} Additional District Judge,^{Warangal, in I.A.Nos.8, 9, 10 and 1i} ol 2024 in O.S.No. I25 ol 2022,^{respectively.The I-As. were hled} by the Legal Representatives of the^{defendant No.11. The} petitioners are the plaintiffs.

¶55

By the said docket orders, the Trial^{Courtset asidean} ex parte order dated 12.11.2015^{passed against the deceased} defendant No.11, and also allowed^{the applications filed by the} respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein condoning^{the delay ol 190 days in} filing the petition to set aside the abatement to^{bring the lega1} representatives of the deceased defendant^{No.L 1 and permiting} the petitioners to come on record as the legal^{representatives of} the deceased defendant No. 1 1.

¶56

As stated above, the petitioner before the Court is the plaintiff in t-he Suit (O.S.No. 125 of 2022), u,hich is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.

¶57

¶58

l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff seeks setting aside of the impugned docket orders on the ground that the defendalt No.11 was.set ex parte b5r an order dated 12.11.201S and the legal representatives ofthe defendant No. i 1 filed the applications on 25.06.2023 without giving sufhcient reasons for the delay in filing the said application. Counsel submits that the legal representatives of the defendant No. I I also did not give any notice of the I.As to the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶59

Learned counsel relies on Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of The Code of Civil procedure, 19Og (CpC) in support of the submission that the Court may exempt the plaintiff from substituting the legal representatives of any defendant who has failed to hle a Written Statement and in other circumstances.

¶60

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff.

¶61

The impugned docket orders make it clear that the applications of the legal representatives of the defendant No. 11, namely, the wife, 2 daughters and 2 sons of the deceased defendant No. 1 1 , were allowed and the legal representatives were made parties under Order IX Rule 7 of the C.p.C, also for setting aside an ex parte order against the defendant No.11.

¶62

I I

¶63

¶64

The docket orders^{further recordthat the legal representatives} informed abor-rt^{the death of the defendant No' 11 on 25C)7 '2022} and hled apptications^{under Section 5 of The LimitationAct'} 1963, Order XXII^{Rules4 and 9 of the C.P C' respectively'}

¶65

Order IX Rule 7 of^{the CPC providesfor the procedure} where the defendant^{appears on an adjourned date of hearing} and assigns^{good cause for the previous non-appearance'Upon} the defendant. doing^{so, the Court can permit the defendantto} be heard in attswer^{to the Suitas if the defendant had appeared} on the day fixed^for his^{appearance, subject tc the defendant} being put on terms as^{thoughht by the Court OrderIX Rule 7} of the CPC makes it^{clear that the defendant can be pern-rittedto} defend the Suit despite^{beingabsent on a da1' when the Suit} was hxed for hearing^{provided the defendantgives goodreasons} as to such absence.

¶66

g. In the present case, the^{defendantNo'11 was set} ex parte by a docket order dated^{l2.ll-2o15on the ground that} the defendant had not made^{any representationand had aiso} not hled his Written Statement.

¶67

Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit^{filed by the 1ega1} representatives of the defendant No.11 states the circumstances of their knowledge of the Suit in April/May 2023. Paragrapln⁴

¶68

¶69

also states that the plaintiff sent a reply notice through her Advocate after receiving the Legal Notice of the legal representatives dated 08.05.2023. The contents of paragraph 4 make it clear that the plaintiff did not take steps to inform the Court of the existence of the legal representatives of the defendant No. 11 and that the legal representatives were hence constrained to frle an application for being impleaded as defendants on 25.06.2023.

¶70

Further, paragraph S states that the legal representatives recently came to know about the Suit proceedings and the fact that the defendant No.ll had been set ex parte by the order dated 12.11.20iS without service of any notice or summons to the defendant No. 1 1 and without verilication of records. Therefore, paragraph 5 of the affidavit contains good grounds for the non-appearance of the defendant No. 11 on 12.lj,.2OIS and satisfies the condition of Order IX Rule 7 of the C.p.C.

¶71

Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the C.p.C, relied on by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not assist the peLitioner's case since the provision makes it clear that the Court has discretion in the matter of exempting the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of

I I

I I

) I

t t

any such^{defendantwho has failedto hle a WrittenStatement or} failed to^{aDpear and contestthe Suit at the hearing'}

¶78

t I

¶79

The contents^{of the affidavit filed by thelegal} representatives^{of the defendant No.11constitutesufhcient} grounds for the Trial^{Court to allow the applications filed by the} legal representatives^{which the Trial Courtrightly didApart} from the 1aw, the^{docket ordersshow that the defendantNo11} was one of the sharers^{to alleged purchaserof the suit schedule} property and hence the plaintiff^{was duty bound to bring the} legai representatives of^{the defendant No.11 on record}

¶80

The above findings,^prima facie,^{would shou'lhzrt the legal} representaLives of the defendant^{No.11are necessaryparties to} the Suit since they^{wouldbe bound by any decree rvhichmay} finally be passed in the plaintiffs^Suit.

¶81

This Court finds no^{infirmityin the reasons givenin the} impugned docket orders.^{The law is certainly on the side of the} legal representatives of^{the defendant No.1 1 who werecorrectly} impleaded as defendant Nos.16 to^{20 in the Suit. The conduct} of the plaintiff, on the other hand, in not^{taking stepsto bring} the lega1 representatives of the defendant^{No.11on record, is to} be deprecated.

16, This Court accordingly finds the Civil Revision Petitions

¶87

to be devoid of merit.

¶88

C.R.P.Nos.3248, 3269,3293 and 3299 ol 2024, along with all connected applications, are accordingly dismissed.

¶89

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT R ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI N OFFICER

To,

1 The ll Additional District Judge, Warangal

¶96

2 One CC to Sri S A V Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC]

3 Two CD Copies

VA/gh

lh,

I \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511212024

1 t\E ST,q i4
(
.?
oL) 19 0E[ ?[?4 o
4+

.OtSprt'l C\f.:{

¶104

COMMON ORDER

¶105

CRP.Nos.3248,3269,^{3293 & 3299 of 2024}

¶106

¶107

DISMISSING ALL^{THE CRPs} N

¶108

Arelli Sailaja v. Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arelli Sailaja v. Nagapuri Dasharatham alias Pogaku Dasharatham (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Subba Rao, Vs The Union of India

Badam Rajender Vs Union of India (Deleted)

Saroj Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India

The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kota konda Pitchaiah Vs The Union of India

Arelli Sailaja Vs Nagapuri Dasharatham @ Pogaku Dasharatham