*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL + CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1391, 1402, 1404, 1493, 1507 and 1521 of 2024 %16-07-2024 #Ahmed Ali Khan & others.

…Petitioners vs.

$Tayab Khatoon and others.

… Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ali Farooque.

^Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Prabhakar Sripada, Senior Counsel representing Sri Gundapu Giridhar.

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1. 1964 AIR (Mysore) 293

2. 2008 AIR SCW 6025

3. AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1201

4. 2004 AIR (Bombay) 359

5. (1993) 4 SCC 41

6. (2010) 9 SCC 385 7. 2010 (3) ALD 358 8. 2008 (1) ALD 253 9. 2003 (3) SCC 485

10. 2003 (2) SCC 111 11. (2010) 8 SCC 329 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1391, 1402, 1404, 1493, 1507 and

1521 of 2024 Between:

Ahmed Ali Khan & others.

…Petitioners vs.

Tayaba Khatoon & others.

… Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.07.2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? :

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? :

___________________

SUJOY PAUL, J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1391, 1402, 1404, 1493, 1507 and 1521 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

These batch of petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution contains a singular legal question and therefore, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. C.R.P.Nos.1391, 1402 and 1404 of 2024 are directed against common order dated 08.02.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.1264, 1265 and 1263 of 2023 in O.S.No.876 of 2017 respectively and C.R.P.Nos.1493, 1507 and 1521 of 2024 are directed against common order dated 08.02.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.1266, 1268 and 1267 of 2023 in I.A.No.514 of 2017 in O.S.No.876 of 2017 respectively, both on the file of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. The singular question deserves consideration is that when admittedly on the date of institution of suit, the sole defendant was not alive, but legal representatives of deceased defendant contested the matter to a great extent, whether the plaintiff’s application for substitution of legal representatives, condone delay and setting aside abatement were entertainable?

Factual backdrop:-

4. The admitted facts between the parties are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.876 of 2017 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. After receipt of summons, vakalath has been filed on behalf of respondent/defendant. During the course of proceedings, the written statement and counter affidavits were also filed. Further, three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 also entered into witness box on behalf of plaintiff.

5. The only defendant in O.S.No.876 of 2017 was Mohd. Masood Ali Khan. The Chief Affidavit of one Maqsood Ali, S/o. Mohd. Masood Ali Khan/main defendant was filed on 21.07.2023. On 11.08.2023, the learned counsel for Mohd. Masood Ali Khan filed a memo and for the first time informed that the sole defendant in the suit died on 05.03.1989.

6. The plaintiff after coming to know about the death of the sole defendant, preferred the aforesaid applications for substitution of legal representatives etc., and clearly stated that the plaintiff was not aware about the death of Mohd. Masood Ali Khan and therefore, the delay in filing the applications for substitution of legal representatives may be condoned and abatement may be set aside.

7. The legal representatives filed reply and prayed for rejection of the above interlocutory applications.

8. The Court below after hearing both the parties passed the impugned common orders dated 08.02.2024 and allowed all the aforesaid applications by holding that the plaintiff was not aware about the death of the main defendant and came to know about it only when the aforesaid memo dated 11.08.2023 was filed. Thus, after considering certain legal pronouncements, all th