Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1378/2022 of Moyyi Jayamma Vs RAKOTI VENKATARAMANA on 7 July 2026
for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 15-07-2026 APHC010348042022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL
Date of reserved for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026
Date of uploading : 15-07-2026
APHC010348042022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1378/2022
Between:
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.
1. MOYYI JAYAMMA, W/ O. LATE RAMINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. NIDDAM VILLAGE, GSIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. GORLE KALAVATHI (DIED), GORLE KALAVATHI (DIED)
3. RAKOTI RAJESWARI, W/O. SURANNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. BELAMAM VILLAGE, AMADALAVASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. RAKOTI VENKATARAMANA, S/O. LATE APPALASURI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. NIDDAM VILLAGE, G-SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT .
2. KEMBURU PAPAMMA, W/O. LAKSHUMNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/ O. NIDDAM VILLAGE, G-SIGADAM, SRIKAKULAM. DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobeg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order and Decree passed in I.A. No. 56 OF 2020 IN
O.S. No. 61 OF 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil-Judge, Raj am dated 11-03-2022 IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 62" OF 2014, on the file of IInd Additional District Judge, Srikakulam pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition as otherwise I suffers irreparable loss and to pass such other Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V SRI DEVI
The Court made the following:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
2. This revision was filed against the order in I.A.No.56 of 2020 in O.S.No.61 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam dated 11.03.2022 dismissing the application for condoning the delay of 430 days to set aside the abatement in filing the L.R. application.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs and the suit was instituted for partition of plaint schedule properties amongst the family members. The petitioners and the respondents are the family members and the 2nd petitioner died and as such the 3rd petitioner was sought to be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased 2nd petitioner. In filing the said application before the trial court, there was a delay of 430 days as the 2nd plaintiff died on 01.06.2018. Unless, all the parties are brought on record, there cannot be any effective persuasion of the partition suit. With incomplete cause title of the family members there cannot be any effective adjudication in the matters specifically like suit for partitions. The trial court ought not have proceeded on technicalities by rejecting the condone delay application/ Section 5 Limitation Act application.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ defendant also submits that, the proper and necessary parties for the partition suit shall be there on record.
5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, since there is a death of one of the plaintiffs, it is just and necessary to bring the L.Rs. on record as the cause survives and as noted above, since it is a partition suit, there shall be a complete cause title including all the family members/ stakeholders for the said partition of the plaint schedule property by hearing the matter on merits. For the said purpose, it is just and necessary to bring the L.R. on record. The trial court ought to have allowed the above said application to bring the L.R. on record for the deceased 2nd plaintiff. In view of the same, the order in I.A.No.56 of 2020 in O.S.No.61 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam dated 11.03.2022 is set aside herewith.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
08.07.2026 NNN
Whether the order is : Speaking ☑ Reasoned
Reportable Non-reportable ☑