Partly allowed

Seelam Ramesh v. Velpula Bikshapathi

Telangana HC16 Feb 2024CRP/3489/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing a petitioners application to implead deceased plaintiffs legal heirs as plaintiffs in a title suit. The court distinguished the Apex Court precedent as facts differed, held the dismissal erroneous due to lack of proper legal advice, and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29-09-2023 set aside; matter remanded to trial court with liberty to file appropriate applications by 19-02-2024.

Seelam Ramesh Vs Velpula Bikshapathi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ t 11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

?
t.
:'.
I
I:" .;r
,':,,

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETIT lON NO: 3489 0F 2023

¶8

Petition Under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 29.09.2023 passed in l.A. No.422 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 74 of 2O08 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumako nda.

¶9

Betweenl

¶10

Seelam Ramesh, (died) per L.Rs

¶11

iI
Rl/o
P

¶12

Se.elam fq19sr_e9, Wo late.S.Ramesh, Aged 53 yrs, occ. house wife. H. No.23-2-92, Shayampet, Hanumakonda, Wirangdi Ur6; rjiltriii. ""='

¶13

3 p^ee^|a11 Adhitya, S/o late S.Ramesh, Aged 23 yrs, occ. Student, Rl/o H .Nol 23-2-92, Shayampet, Hanumakonda, wirangii tjroiri biitriii.^""'

¶14

Seelam Veera Nethaji, S/o .late S.Ramesh, Aged 18 yrs, occ.Student. H. No.23-2-92, Shayarirpet, Hanumakonda, Waringat ur6ari oisiiiii.^--''',

¶15

... Petitioners/Plaintiff Nos.2 t

¶16

AND

¶17

'1. Velpula^B_ik9!gpg!hi, S/o Vee.ramallu, Agep 4S yrs, occ. business, Rl/o H.No.23-3-131 , Shayampet, Hanumdko"nda, Wirahgat UrOin biiirtit.

¶18

...Respondent /Plaintiff No.1

¶19

2 Nagineni-Jqg.qnnqdha.Rao, .S-/9 Swamy Rao, Aged 65 yrs, occ. Nil, R/o H.No.23-6-246, Tiger Hitts, JSM Cotony, Shdyairpet, tjanlmaton<ia,-^- Warangal Urban District.

¶20

3 iliff^{fl l#fl ai'ii6;,tii,'i3fi HH"XlSif,%",fl} ,11,,,f;ffi^;?llfl BIeeF,/o'i Warangal Urban District.

¶21

4 Nagineni Prakash Rao, S/o Swamy Rao, Aqed S0 yrs. occ. emolovee. R/o H.No.23$-246, Tiger Hills, JSM C6tony, Shiayampet, Hanumaionita,^{'- -} Warangal Ufian District.

¶22

5 Chidirala.Padma Dqy! W{o Someshwar Rao, , Aged 45 yrs, occ. employee, Rl/o Lohitha village, Wardhannapet, Warangal DiStrict.

¶23

t.
IJ
I
!
?

¶24

...Respondents/Defendant Nos.1 to 4

¶25

di Pffi. t\ii li '!

¶26

IA NO: 10F 2023

¶27

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated l} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the HighCourt maYbe Pleasedto s} the pronouncement^{of judgmentin l.A.No.4 21 of 2022 in O.S.No.174of 2008 on} the file of Addl.^{SeniorCivil Judge, Hanumakonda, pending disPosalof the CRP in} the interest of^justice. Counsel for the^{Petitioners: SriH Venu Gopalrepresenting Sri} 1II Nalla Mukunda^Reddy

¶28

,}
1II
a
I
f
I
i
I
j
I
-i
i;a
:,;
't 1
:.
I

¶29

Counsel for the^{RespondentsNo.2 to 5: Sri Kadaru PrabhakarRao}

¶30

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶31

ri &&+,,

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN

¶33

CML REVISION PETITION No.3489 of 2o23

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Heard Sri H. Venu Gopal, learned senior^{counselrepresenting} Sri N. Mukund Reddy, leamed counsel appearing^{for the petitioner} Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, leamed^{counselappearing} for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. However, in^the light of^{the relief} sought by petitioners herein, notice^{to respondentNo. t / plaintiff No.I} is dispensed with. Perused the record.

¶36

Respondent No.l herein / plaintiff No.l 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 ofpossession.

¶37

Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein are claiming that they are legal heirs of petitioner No. I / plaintiff No.2. According to^petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein, petitioner No.l 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 5l 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:

¶38

¶39

¶40

KL, C.R.P.No.3489 of 2O23

¶41

Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have to file an application under Order XXII Rute 3 of CpC to bring them as L.Rs. of plaintiff No.2 along with an application to set aside abatement order.

¶42

They have suppressed the fact of filing of L.R. application by plaintiff No.1.

¶43

However, vide impugned order dated 29_09_2023, leamed trial

¶44

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.l, and retum of the same.

¶45

Sri H. Venu Gopa[, leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the principle taid down by the Hon,ble Apex court in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zaravadia v. Jethabhai Karabhai Zelavadiyat would submit that leamed trial court dismissed the said application on hypertechnicalities.

¶46

In the afore-cited judgment, Apex Court had an occasion to deal with scope of Order I Rule l0 and Order 22 Rule 4 of CpC and in

¶47

paragraph No.14 of the said judgment it was held that Courts have to

¶48

'^{zo ta} 1z;^{er-o ez} 1sc;

¶49

¶50

KL,J C.R.P.No.3489^{of 2023}

¶51

¶52

consider^{the nature of relief sought, facts and decidethe same instead} of dismissing^{the same on hypertechnicalities' Courts have to do} substantial^{justice to the parties. Trial Courts and HighCourtsshould} not.adopt^{hyper technicalitieswhich may result in miscarriageof} justice.

¶53

The facts ofthe^{present case are slightly differentto the facts of} the said case.^{Admittedly,petitionerNo'1 / plaintiffNo'2diedon 05-} 05-2021. Petitioner^{Nos.2 to 4 hereinhave 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, theyhave to file an applicationseeking} abatement^{order alongwith an applicationto bring them as LRs of} plaintiff No.l. They^{have not filedthe said applications'Therefore'} they cannot^{blame the learned triat Court for their fault'}

¶54

As discussed^{supra, thereis no disputethat petitioner Nos'2 to 4} herein are^{legal heirs of petitioner No' I / plaintiff No'2and his date of} death is also^{not in dispute. Instead of filing application under Order} XXII Rute³ of^{CPC seeking to bring themas L'Rs'' theyhave filed} the present application^{under Order I Rule10 r/w' Section 151 of CPC} seeking to^{impleadthem as plaintiffNos'3 to 5' It is only due to lack}

¶55

¶56

C.R.P.No.3489 of 2023

¶57

of proper legal advice. Therefore, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot be suffered.

¶58

Finding of the leamed trial Court that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein have suppressed the fact ofearlier application filed by plaintiff No.1 to bring them as L.Rs. is nor proper. It is plaintiff No.l who filed the said application, but nor 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. I and rerurn of the same.

¶59

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.l74 of 2008 pending on the file of leamed Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Hanumakonda is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the leamed 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 / plaintiffNo.2 along with an application to set aside the abatement order. petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall file the said applicationsby 19-02_2024.Libety is also given to them to file an application to advance the suit from 26-02-2024 to 19-022024. They have to file the said applicatio n on 19_02_2024, positively.

¶60

KL,J C.R.P.No34A9 of^2O23

¶61

¶62

¶63

Learned trial Court shall^{decide alI the applications strictly} ln

¶64

accordance with law.

¶65

As discussed supra,^{suit is of the year 2008. Therefore, leamed} triai Court shall dispose of^{the said suit, strictly in accordance with} law, as expeditiously as^{possible, preferablywith a period of three (3)} months from the date of^{receipt of a copyof this order.}

¶66

Accordingly, this Civil^{Revision Petitionis disposed of. No} costs.

¶67

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in this}

¶68

Civil Revision Petition^{shall stand closed.}

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD

ASSISTANT

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI

CER,P;

To,

1 The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda 2 One CC to Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

I
t
1

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610212024

ORDER

CRP.No.3489 of 2023