THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 629, 630 AND 631 OF 2011 Dated:04-07-2014 Between:
T. Dhan Singh ... PETITIONER AND Vinod Kumar Agarwal and three others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 629, 630 AND 631 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER:
The 1st respondent filed O.S No. 513 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner (defendant No.1), one Smt. Susheela Bai (defendant No.2 who is no more) and respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant i.e., Susheela Bai died. The 1st respondent filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC with a prayer to bring the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant on record. Since there was delay in filing it, two more applications were filed with a prayer to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay in filing the application. The applications were opposed by the petitioner herein. The trial Court allowed the concerned applications being I.A Nos. 1537, 1538 and 2834 of 2009 through separate orders dated 04-02-2011. Hence these three revisions.
Heard Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The sole plaintiff in the suit i.e., the 1st respondent filed applications to bring the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant on record, to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay. Normally, one does not expect a party to a suit to know about the death of the other party. For that reason only, the Parliament incorporated Rule 10A in Order XXII CPC placing obligation upon the counsel representing the deceased party to furnish the information not only about the death of the party but also the particulars of the legal representatives. In the instant case, though it is mentioned that intimation about the death of the 2nd defendant was furnished, the details of the legal representatives were not mentioned. At any rate, the delay is only 102 days. Out of several defendants only one has approached this Court. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
Hence, these three revisions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 4th July, 2014 ks