Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 378
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mr. M.S. Ramakrishna Raju - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Syed Yousuf @ Yousuf Miya And Others - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1806 OF 2026
Decided On : 11-09-2026
Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC, a pleader must provide details of legal representatives, not just report a party's death. Additionally, per Order XXII Rule 4(4), courts may exempt plaintiffs from substituting LRs of defendants who failed to file written statements or contest the suit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXII, Rule 10-A and Rule 4(4) - Duty of pleader to communicate death of a party - Providing mere information regarding the fact of death is not sufficient compliance of Rule 10-A unless the counsel furnishes details of the persons against whom the right to sue survives, as parties would otherwise struggle to identify legal representatives (Paras 10, 11) - Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants - Under Rule 4(4), the Court may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; judgment may then be pronounced against said defendant notwithstanding the death (Paras 12, 13).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit to declare a registered agreement of sale as null and void. The defendants failed to file written statements and were set ex parte. After the plaintiffs led evidence and arguments were partially heard, it was reported in open court that some defendants had died. The trial court ordered the plaintiffs to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record and subsequently posted the matter for dismissal due to the plaintiffs' failure to do so.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's approach was incorrect as the counsel for the deceased defendants merely reported the deaths without furnishing details of the legal representatives as required under Rule 10-A. Furthermore, since the deceased defendants had not contested the suit, the trial court could have exempted the plaintiffs from substituting the legal representatives under Order XXII, Rule 4(4) and proceeded to pronounce judgment.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in posting the suit for dismissal for failure to take steps against deceased defendants who were ex parte and whose legal representatives' details were not provided by their counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Order XXII Rule 10-A requires the pleader to provide specific details of legal representatives, not just the fact of death. Additionally, Order XXII Rule 4(4) empowers the court to exempt a plaintiff from substituting legal representatives of a defendant who failed to file a written statement or contest the suit, allowing the court to conclude proceedings and pronounce judgment.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; docket order set aside.
ORDER:
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard, Mr. Pramod Maligi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 8 to 11. The notices sent to respondent Nos.6 and 7 returned un-served and notice sent to respondent No.5 also returned un-served as he died. Vide order dated 31.07.2026, while ordering notices to respondent Nos.4 to 10, this Court observed that the trial Court passed the order to the effect that defendant Nos.1 to 3reported died.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the docket order dated 27.04.2026 in O.S. No.55 of 2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.
3. The petitioner herein and two (02) others are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.55 of 2019, while the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the said suit O.S. No.55 of 2019.
4. Perusal of record would show that that the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit to declare registered agreement of sale bearing document No.400 of 2015, dated 07.01.2015 as null and void. Plaintiff No.1 contended that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 12346.5 square yards in Survey Nos.110, 115, 116 and 118, situated at Hydernagar Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Rangareddy District. Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Acs.1.04 guntas (5324 square yards) in Survey Nos.115, 116 and 118. Plaintiff No.3 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and engaged in the business of development of lands, buildings, construction of high rise buildings etc.,
5. Plaintiff No.1 had given the land admeasuring 11884.5 square yards to plaintiff No.3 for development under registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.14390 of 2016, dated 30.12.2016. Similarly, plaintiff No.2 had given the aforesaid extent of land to plaintiff No.3 for development under the registered Development Agreements-cum- General Power of Attorney bearing document No.4260 of 2013, dated 21.05.2013.
6. The record would also show that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the predecessor’s-in-interest of the plaintiffs and they created an Agreement of Sale bearing document No.400 of 2015, dated 07.01.2015 in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 10 in respect of the plaintiffs’ properties. In fact, defendant Nos.7 to 10 are no way concerned with suit schedule properties. Pursuant to the said Agreement of Sale, the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants to declare the said Agreement of Sale bearing document No.400 of 2015, dated 07.01.2015 as null and void.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants entered appearance, engaging a counsel and despite granting sufficient time including imposing costs, the defendants did not chose to file written statement. Therefore, the trial Court set them ex parte. Thereafter, PW.1 filed affidavit in-lieu of chief-examination and marked Exs.A1 to A15. Thereafter, PW.2 filed the affidavit in- lieu of chief-examination and got marked Exs.A16 and 17 and reported no further evidence on their behalf and, accordingly, the suit was posted for arguments and on hearing the arguments of the plaintiffs in part posted the matter for further arguments. While so, defendant Nos.1 to 3 reported died and posted the matter for taking steps. Since no steps were taken by the plaintiffs, the suit was posted for dismissal.
8. It is also contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that except reporting in the open Court that defendant Nos.1 to 3 died, the counsel appeared on their behalf neither filed a memo, nor furnished the details of legal representati
