Telangana High Court
CRP/1082/2013 of Gundla Pramila, Vs Likki Ram Reddy (Died) Per L.Rs. on 31 December 2015
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1082 of 2013 Between: Gundla Pramila and others. .…Petitioners and Likki Ram Reddy (died) and others. .…Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 31.12.2015 THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
* * * *
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1082 of 2013
Between:Gundla Pramila and others.
.…Petitioners
andLikki Ram Reddy (died) and others.
.…RespondentsJUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 31.12.2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO :
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments?2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the Judgment? may be allowed to see the Judgments?2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the Judgment?
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1082 of 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The plaintiffs are the petitioners herein. They filed O.S.No.806 of2001 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, RangaReddy District, at L.B.Nagar, challenging the revocation of giftsettlement deed dated 23.05.2001 and registered sale deed dated23.05.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to4. While the suit was pending, defendant No.1 died. The petitionersherein, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, are the daughters of defendantNo.1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters-in-law of defendant No.1. The present application in I.A.No.5515 of 2006 was filed seekingcondonation of delay of 1475 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of defendant No.1. The saidapplication was dismissed on 02.11.2012 on the ground that thepetitioners failed to give proper explanation for the delay. Challengingthe said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The proposed defendant Nos.5 to 7 are the brothers of theplaintiffs as they are the sons of deceased defendant No.1. Theapplication to bring the legal representatives is only for continuation ofthe suit proceedings. In this case, the plaintiffs are also some of thelegal representatives. The main contest is with regard to the revocationof the gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs and execution of saledeed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 on the same day.
Now it has come to the notice of the Court that evidence wascompleted and the case is coming up for arguments. It appears thatdefendant No.1 died without filing any written statement. DefendantNos.2 to 4 are defending their case. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the wivesof proposed defendant Nos.5 to 7. Since the evidence is alreadycompleted, this Court is not inclined to give an opportunity to theproposed defendants to lead any further evidence, but only for thepurpose of continuation of the present proceedings, they can beimpleaded.
In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.11.2012 inI.A.No.5515 of 2006 is set aside and the delay of 1475 days in bringingthe legal representatives on record is allowed, subject to payment ofRs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the Counsel for defendantNos.2 to 4 in the suit, within a period of two weeks. Since the evidencewas completed, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit asexpeditiously as possible, but not later than 31.03.2016.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)
31.12.2015
vs