Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs Sri Adivishnu Vithal Rao on 20 September, 2024
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010217002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3239]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1043 AND 1044 OF 2024
Between:
SMT.DR.GUNDUMOGULA SATYAKUMARI, WIF OF
SRINIVASARAO, HINDU, DERMATOLOGIST, AGED 41 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BABUGARI ST, TANUKU. TJCJC.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SRI ADIVISHNU VITHAL RAO, (DIED ON 24-09-2019)
2. SRI ADIVISHNU SIVA NAGA PRASAD, SON OF VITHAL
RAO,HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED 44 YEARS, SRI
VIJAYALAKSHMI TIMBER DEPOT, MAIN ROAD,
TANUKU.TJCJC.
3. VINNAKOTA BAPIRAJU, OF SATYANARAYANAMURTHY,
HINDU, EMPLOYEE, AGE 70, FLAT NO.248, R.K.COLONY,
AS RAO NAGAR, SECUNDERABAD.
4. VINNAKOTA SRIRAMARAO, SON OF
SATYANARAYANAMURTHY, HINDU, EMPLOYEE, AGE 61,
C/O V.VEERRAJU, BEHIND TOWN HALL, TANUKU. TJCJC.
5. VINNAKOTA VENKATESWARARAO, SON OF
SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, HINDU,EMPLOYEE, AGE 65,
NEAR KONDANDA RAMASWAMY TEMPLE, NEAR PRABHAT
TALKIES, KHAMMAM.
6. VINNAKOTA KRISHNAMURTHY, SON OF
SATYNARAYANAMURTHY, HINDU, EMPLOYEE, AGE 59,
FLAT NO.248, R.K.COLONY, AS RAO NAGAR,
SECUNDERABAD.
7. VINNAKOTA SURYANARAYANAMURTHY, OF
SATYANARAYANAMURTHY, HINDU, EMPLOYEE, AGE 58,
2
Common order C.R.P.Nos.1043 and 1044 of 2024
FLAT NO.248, R.K.COLONY, AS RAO NAGAR,
SECUNDERABAD.
8. VINNAKOTA SURYA KUMARI, D/O
SATYANARAYANAMURTHY, HINDU, AGE 53, C/O
V.VEERRAJU, BEHIND TOWN HALL, TANUKU. TJCJC
9. VINNAKOTA BAPIRAJU, OF KRISHNAMURTHY, HINDU, AGE
62, PROFESSOR, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, WALTAIR, VDMC
10. VINNAKOTA VEERRAJU, SON OF KRISHNA MURHY, HINDU,
AGE 60, C/O VINNAKOTA BAPIRAJU, PROFESSOR,
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, WALTAIR.
11. VINNAKOTA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA, OF
KRISHNAMURTHY, HINDU, AGE 52, C/O VINNAKOTA
BAPIRAJU, PROFESSOR, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY WALTAIR.
12. VINNAKOTA BALA VENKATA VEERRAJU, OF
SURYANARAYANA, HINDU, UNEMPLOYEE, VINNAKOTA
NARASIMHARAO, NADELLAVARI ST, TANUKU.
13. VINNAKOTA NARASIMHARAO, SON OF SURYANARAYANA,
HINDU, BUSINESS, AGE 47, NADELLAVARI ST, TANUKU.
14. VINNAKOTA BAPESWARARAO, SON OF SURYNARAYANA,
HINDU, AGE 45, C/O V.NARASIMHARAO, NADELLAVARI ST,
TANUKU. TJCJC
15. VINNAKOTA SEETHADEVI, WIFE OF VEERRAJU, HINDU,
HOUSEWIFE, 67, SUNKAVALLIVARI ST, TANUKU. TJCJC.
16. VINNAKOTA SIVA GOVINDA BAPESH, SON OF VEERRAJU,
HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, AGE 38, C/O VINNAKOTA
SEETHADEVI, SUNKAVALLIVARI ST, TANUKU. TJCJC.
17. VINNAKOTA SATYA NARASIMHA KISHORE, , SON OF
VEERRAJU, HINDU, 37, SUNKAVALLIVARI ST, TANUKU.
TJCJC.
18. SMT ADIVISHNU SESHA RATNAM, W/O. VITAL RAO, HINDU,
FEMALE, AGED 75 YRS. HOUSE WIFE, SRI
VIJAYALAKSHMI TIMBER DEPOT TANUKU.TJCJC.
19. ADIVISHNU ESWARA KUMAR S, S/O VITALA RAO, HINDU,
MALE, AGED 48 YRS. BUSINESS, SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI
TIMBER DEPOT, MAIN ROAD, TANUKU.TJCJC.
20. ADIVISHNU LAKSHMI MATA, D/O LATE VITAL RAO, HINDU,
FEMALE, AGED 37 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.21-4-24,
TANUKUVARI STREET, TANUKU, TJCJC
21. ADIVISHNU SIVA PARVATHI, D/O LATE VITAL RAO, HINDU,
3
Common order C.R.P.Nos.1043 and 1044 of 2024
FEMALE, AGED 48 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.21-4-24,
TANUKUVARI STREET, TANUKU, TJCJC
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVAS MALLAMPALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
The Court made the following
COMMON ORDER :
As both C.R.Ps arise out of the same suit viz., O.S.No.33 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku, West Godavari District, they are being disposed off, by way of this common order.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit. She filed the said suit for recovery of possession after ejecting the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the plaint schedule property. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died on 24.09.2019 leaving behind his wife and children who were shown as respondents No.18 to 21. Consequently, the suit against D.1 was abated. While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.214 of 2020 seeking to set aside the abatement and also I.A.No.215 of 2020 to bring respondents No.18 to 21 as legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. I.A.No.214 of 2020, which was filed under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC was dismissed by the learned trial Judge holding that the petitioner has not filed a petition seeking to condone the delay. Consequent to the dismissal of I.A.No.214 of 2020, the 4 Common order C.R.P.Nos.1043 and 1044 of 2024 learned trial Judge also dismissed I.A.No.215 of 2020, by separate orders. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed these two C.R.Ps.
3. This court perused the entire material on record.
4. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of Article 121 of Limitation Act, 1967, the petition to set aside the abatement has to be filed within 60 days from the date of abatement. As such, the present petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is within time. Admittedly, 1st defendant died on 24.09.2019 and the case stood abated after 90 days. Thereafter, an application to set aside abatement has to be filed within a period of 60 days.
5. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner/plaintiff filed the application on 04.02.2020, which in the considered view of this Court, is well within time. As such, the learned trial Judge ought not to have dismissed I.A.Nos.214 of 2020 and 215 of 2020 seeking to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record, holding that the petitioner ought to have filed a petition to condone delay.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior 5 Common order C.R.P.Nos.1043 and 1044 of 2024 Division), Tanuku in I.A.No.214 of 2020 and I.A.No.215 of 2020 in O.S.No.33 of 2014 are liable to be set aside and both I.As need to remit back to the learned trial Judge to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.03.2024 in I.A.No.214 of 2020 and I.A.No.215 of 2020 in O.S.No.145 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku, are hereby set aside and I.A.No.214 of 2020 and I.A.No.215 of 2020 are remitted back to the learned trial Judge to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY Dt. 20.09.2024 SAB / TSNR