Allowed

Dr L Janardhan Reddy (Died) v. M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025CRP/7167/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside a trial court's dismissal of a delay condonation application. The Court relied on Order XXII CPC and Supreme Court precedent, noting that legal representatives filed via a G.P.A. holder after a 357-day delay without prior notice to parties. It allowed the application on payment of costs and directed the trial court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned docket order dated 05.12.2017 was set aside; I.A. No. 118 of 2017 was allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000 to the Legal Service Authority; the trial court was directed to take up the

Dr L Janardhan Reddy (Died) Vs M/s. Narne… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAYOF AUGUST

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

Civil Revision Petition No.7167 of2078

¶7

Civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the docket order dated 05.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.118 of 2077 n O.S.No.216 oI 2OOZ on the file of the court of the vlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Dishict at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. L.Janardhan Reddy (Died per LRS), Hyclerabad.

¶10

?. ?*t^{L. Shoba Redv,W/o. late Dr. L.;anaidhanReddy, Aged about64years.}

¶11

Smt. Deepika Lingala, W/o. Srinvasa yarrakoncia Aged about 41 years.

¶12

Smt. Shilpa Lingala, , W/o. Srikanth Devireddy, Aged about 39 years.

¶13

Petitioners 2 to 4 arc R,/o.46, ICRISAT Colony Phase I, Brigadier Sayeed Road, Manovikas Nagar Secunderabad-500009 and presently residing at United States of America Rep. bv their GPA holder D.Jar-rarclhan Reddy, s/o- D. Jagga Reddy aged about 69 years, R/ o, 17-7383 /IP /l34lndraprastha Township, phase I Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Revision/^petitioncrs.

¶15

AND

¶16

M/s. Narnc Estatcs Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companics Act, having its Regd. office at 10, Gunrock Enclave secunderabad, Rep. by its Chaiiman ancl Managing Director Colonel (Retd.) N. Ranga Rao.

¶17

Colonel (Retd.) N. Ranga Rao, s/o. N.v. Naidu, aged about 64 years g6, Gunrock Encla'e, Secunderabacl.

¶18

N. Rama Murthr', s/.. N.V- Naidu Aged about 66 years, occ Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 6-7, Raidurg Hvdcrabad.

¶19

C. Krishna Babu, s/o. Kotcshwara Rao Aged about 52 years, occ Chartered Accountanr, R/o. Plot No. 10 Gunrock Enciave, Secunderabacl.

¶20

Mrs. N. sa'ithri, w/o. N. Rama Murthy, Aged about 61 years, occ Househotcl R/o. H. No. 6-7, Raiadurg, Hvderabad.

¶21

Dr.N. Santha, w/o, N- Ranga Rao, Aged about 59 years, occ Househord R/o. g6, Guruock Enclave-Colonv, Sec underabacl

¶22

Mrs.lndira Prasad, w/o. s.v. Prasad Aged about 56 years, occ Household R/ o. E-7-26, Krishnapuri Colony {est Maredpally Colony, Secunderabad.

¶23

Ravula somasundaram, s/o. subbaia Ageci about 72 years, Retd. Govt. Emplovee R,u o. H. No. 6-3-595,r16, Padrnavathi Nagar, Khairatabaci, Hyderabad.

¶24

Mrs. Patchava Ramanamrna, w/o. Rarnanaiah Aged about 56 years, occ Houser,r.iic R/o. H. No.8-3-676/l/ A2/ 2, Y ellaredclyguda Hyderabad.

¶25

Vemuri Butchaiah (<liecl per Lrs. Respondent Nos.11 to 14)

¶26

Dr. su'arna L^atha, D/o. late V.Butchaiah, aged about 51years, R/ o.8-3-9$/a/ 5, yellarcdcly guda, Hvderabad.

¶27

Dr. Y. ]angaiah, S/o. late V. Butchaiah Aged about 49 years, Rrzo. H. No.8-3_903/4/5 Yellarcdclyguda, Hvderabad.

¶28

Mrs. D. Aruna, w/o. Dr. D. satyanarayana, Aged abott 47 year, occ Household R/o. H. No. 8-3-903 / 4/ 5 Yellaredrlyguda, Hyderabad.

¶29

.Respondents

¶30

' " ---/ -r

¶31

V. Ramesh, S/o. Butchaiah (died per LRs.)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Madhusudhan Reddy Pasunoor

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: - -

¶34

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶35

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.'ANA CML REVISION PETITION No.7167 of 2O18

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Civil Revision Petition is Iiled by the petitioner to set aside the docket order dated O5.12.2OI7 passed in I.A.No.118 of 2017 in .^{O.S. No. 216 of 2OO7 by the VIII AdditionalSeniorCivil Judge,Ranga} Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. By the impugned docket order, the petition f,rled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the applications to set aside the abatement order and to bring the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No. 1, w'as dismissed by the trial Court.

¶39

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, ttre parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

¶40

The brief facts of the case are that though ui.de letter dated 16.1L.2O24 defendant No.1 assured to complete the sale trarrsaction conveying clear titled schedule land after receiving paSrments from plaintiff No.1 for purchasing the schedule land i.e., Plot bearing No.46 admeasuring 388 Sq.Yards of land in Grand View Jubilee Hills layout, defendant No.l has failed to execute sale deed in respect of schedule

¶41

¶42

sr-sl,J c R P No 7167 of2L)1A

¶43

land in favour of plaintiff No.l. Aggrieved by the r arne, plaintiff No. 1 lrled suit against the defendants uide o.s. No.21€, of 2ooz before the VIII Additional Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Di rtrict at L.B.Nagar. Pendente life, plaintiff No.l was died and that the -evision petitioners have filed I.A.No.1l8 of 2ol7 through their GpA h. ler to condone the delay of 357 days in hling the applications to se I aside abatement order and to bring the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 bei:g the LR,s of the deceased plaintiff No.1 on record.

¶44

By the impugned docket order dated OS.l2.2( 17, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A.. Hence, the present revision l,etition is hled.

¶45

Heard Sri Madhusudhan Reddy pasunoor, 1r arned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was served, none apl eared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material available on - :cord.

¶46

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners s,-r :mitted that there is communication gap about the case proceedins s as the revision petitioners are residing in USA. He further submit ed that since the petitioners are in uSA, the I.As. are hled by their rl pA holder. In this regard, he placed reliarrce on the judgement of the \pex Court in Om

¶47

srgJ c-P P- Na 7167 of 2O18

¶48

I I !

¶49

Pro,kash Gupta Alias la.llouta dnd others v, Satish Chandrat and

¶50

prayed the Court to allow this Civil Revision Petition

¶51

In case of Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lallowa and others (Supra), the Apex Court at paragraph No.11 held as under:

¶52

"11. R:tle 1 of Order XXII CPC prouides that when a partA lo a suif passes auaA, the suit ttill not abate if tlrc right to sue suruiues. /n insfances uhere tLLe ight to sue does suruiue, th.e procedure for binging on re@rd the legal rcprcsentatiue(s) oJ the plainttff/ appellent ond tLe defend.ant/ reslnrldent are prouided in Rules 3 and 4, respectiuelg, of Order XXII. The suit/ appeal autamqticallg abetes when an application to substitute tl'te legal representatlue(s) oJ the deceased partg is not frled uithin tte prescibed limitation period of 90 d.ags from^{the date of deatl4as stipulated bg Arlicle 12O oJ} the Limitation Act, 1963. It rnuld utell be so that death of a d-efendant/ respondent is nof made known to the plaintiff/ appelLant within 90 dags, betng the period oJ limitetion. Does il mean that the suit or appeal will not abate? The answer in uieu of tle scheme of Order XXII connot be in the negatiue. la the euent the plaintifJ/ appellqnt dedues krawledge oJ death immediatelg afier the suit/ appeal has abated, the rem.edg auailable ts to fiIe an appt[cation seeking setting aside of the abatement, tlLe limitation wlerefor i.s sttpuldted in Article 121 and which allou,ts a period of 60 d.ags. TLrcrefore, betLueen the 91st and the 15oth daA afrer th.e death one hos to fle an application for sening aside th.e obatemenL On the 151st dag, thrs remedg becomes timebarred; tnnseqtentlA,^qnA opplication seeking to set aside tle abdtement must lhen be acampanted bg a request contained tn an application for andonation of delag under Section 5 oJ the Limitqtion Act in ftrng the applicafton for setling aside tLe abatement. Tluts, the total time-frqme Jor fiting an application for^{substihltionand} for^{setting aside abetemeflLas outlited} in AfticLes 12O and 121 of the Limitation Act, is 15O (9O + 6O) d.ags. The ql.Lestton of condonqtion of delag, through an applicatton under Section 5 oJ the Limttation Act, arises onlA aftet this period and not on the 91st daA when the suit/ appeal abates . From our limited expeien^p on ttre benclt of this C.ourt, we haue found it someuhat of a Jrequent oco.urence that after abatement oJ the suit oruJ aftet the 15oth dag of deeth an applicotion is filed for <nruJonation of delay in fihng the applrcation fot substitution but not on application seektrg andonaton of delag in fiting he application Jor setling aside the dbatem.ent. The proper seqLrcnce to be Jollowed., therefore, is an appltcation for substitution within 90 ddAS of death and if rat fled, to f.le an

¶53

'202s^{INSC 183}

¶54

¶55

a: !:^P itt 7167 oi.ata

¶56

application for seX'";',g .: .at i^e abatement withift I 0 dags and if tlwt too is n"t fr!,,c-, ;o fte tlrc requisite appliat ons Jor substitution arvl sehir"g^qside the abatem.ent L ith an acmmpanging application Jor mndonatioru oJ delag r fLing tLLe latter opplicatiory i.e., th.e apptication for setting z ide tlrc abetement. Once the court ls satislEed that s.4 flclent cause preoented the platatlfl/appellatrt Jrorn <t, ,plglng Jor^{settlnga.sld.ethe qbqtement ulthlnthe pe} -tod. oJ llrnlt(rtTon^qnd orders^{(rccordlrlglg,} comcs the ,l !estion of settlng t e o.bdtement. That happens as a nl tter of cowrse and. Jollowhtg tLe ord.er Jor substltrrtio.l of trte deceased deJendant/responden\ the sullt tppeal regqios lts earller posltlon and. raould procee c Jor^a trtawearing on rnerits. Be that os it mag."

¶57

B. A plain reading of the above makes it abunda:r Jy clear that if the revision petitioners satisfy the Court with sufficient rause for not filing the petition within the stipulated period, then the ri rid petition can be allovged.

¶58

On the aforesaid touchstone, in the pro ent cases, it is noteworthy that though petitioner No.1 died on 25.1 0.2015, the I.A. is liled by the GPA holder of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. I is apparent that there is communication gap about the case proceeclr rgs and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are residing in U.S.A.. Hence, consi,l rring the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to 11 ve an opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the suit instezr, I of appeasing the matter in a narrow compass or on technicalities, hcrever, by imposing costs on the petitioners.

¶59

¶60

s'rEJ c R_P. No 7t6?^of2OlA

¶61

Accordingly, this Civil Revision^{Petitionis allowedsetting aside} the docket order dated^{05.12.2017passedby the VIII AdditionalSenior} Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District^{at L.B.Nagar. I.A' No.118 of 2017 is} allowed on paJment of costs of^{Rs.2,000/-payableby the revision} petitioners to the trial court Legal^{Service Authority.The trial court is} directed to take up the^{I.A. filed by the revisionpetitioners and shall} pass necessar5r orders after^{payment of costs by the revision} petitioners as directed above.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶62

Miscellaneous applications, if^{any pending,shallalso}

¶63

stand closed.

¶64

SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR AssrSTANr RrGtsrRT

(rj -,,,

/ /TRUECO?Y / /

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The VIII Additional Senior Civil Jutlge, Ranga Rodciv District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Madhusudhan Reddv Pasunoor, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies.

JCKIr,SL

HIGH COURT

D/\TED.04/08/2025

OItDF,It

CI(l'.No.7167 of 2018

¶76