The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on record should be condoned if no prejudice would be caused to the defendant or their legal representatives, and procedural and technical hurdles should not impede substantial justice.

ORDER :

1. a) C.R.P.No.3100 of 2014 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 05.06.2014 in I.A.No.707 of 2013 in O.S.No.488 of 2010 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said I.A. was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to condone the delay of 1713 days in filing an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased/respondent/first defendant on to record.

b) C.R.P.No.3107 of 2014 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 05.06.2014 in I.A. No.4222 of 2009 in O.S.No.159 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said I.A. was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 469 days in filing an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased/respondent/first defendant on to record.

c) C.R.P.No.3154 of 2014 is filed under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 05.06.2014 in I.A.No.709 of 2013 in O.S.No.620 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The said I.A. was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay of 1713 days in filing an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased/respondent/first defendant on to record.

2. In all the above Original Suit bearing Nos.488 of 2010, 159 of 2008 and 620 of 2011, though the plaintiffs are different, all these three suits were filed against the common defendant, Sri D.K. Srinivas Raju. It appears, during pendency of the original suits, the defendant died. The plaintiffs have filed applications to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased- defendant on to record. The trial Court has dismissed IA No.707 of 2013 in OS No.488 of 2010, IA No.4222 of 2009 in OS No.159 of 2008 and IA No.709 of 2013 in OS No.620 of 2011, as per the orders dated 05.06.2014. Accordingly, since the common question is involved and the defendant in all the above suits is common, it is proposed to dispose of all three CRPs together, through this common order.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the above original suits against the sole defendant for recovery of money and when the suits were posted for trial, the plaintiffs have come to know that the sole defendant died on 05.05.2018 and to that effect, defendant’s counsel has also filed a Memo before the trial Court. Whereas, copy of Memo was received by the junior counsel, Sri Nagabushanam and later he left the office and he is not pursuing the matter. The plaintiffs were under the impression that the junior counsel-Nagabushanam is pursuing the matter. It is only on 07.07.2009 they have come to know about the said fact that junior counsel is not pursuing the matter. Thus there is a delay of 1713 days in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on to record in O.S.No.488 of 2010. Similarly, there is a delay of 469 days in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on to record in O.S.No.159 of 2008. Similarly, there is a delay of 1713 days in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant on to record in O.S.No.620 of 2011.

4. The trial Court after elaborate discussion dismissed all these applications holding that the version of plaintiffs is not believable, at one point of time it is stated that junior counsel left the office and at another point of time it is mentioned that transfer OP was filed and stay was granted and they were not aware of the proceedings and when the stay is vacated. Hence, the version of plaintiffs was not at all reliable and accordingly dismissed the applications.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and for the respondents/defendants in all the three cases. Perused the material