THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I.A.No.1 to 3 of 2023, I.A.No.1 to 6 of 2025 In/And

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri N. Saida Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners as well as Sri Chalakani Venkata Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.11.2003 passed in O.S.No.626 of 1996 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

3. I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2023 have been filed by the legal representatives of respondent No.9 in the appeal suit seeking (i) condonation of delay of 4197 days in filing the application to bring them on record as legal representatives, (ii) setting aside the abatement that occurred due to the death of respondent No.9, and (iii) impleading them as parties in the appeal.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners in I.A.Nos.1 to 3 submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had instituted O.S.No.626 of 1996 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos.5 to 10, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and allotment of their respective shares. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and aggrieved by the judgment, respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred A.S.No.2327 of 2004, which is pending before this Court. He further submitted that respondent No.9 in the appeal died on 21- 02-2009, leaving behind his two sons, Hanumanthu (who had already predeceased him on 06-10-2008) and Petitioner No.2. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Hanumanthu. Respondent Nos.16 and 17, though also legal representatives of the deceased, have not joined the petitioners and are instead aligned with the contesting respondents. Thus, they are shown as respondents in the present applications.

3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were unaware of the pendency of the appeal and only came to know about it when the counsel for respondent No.9 recently informed them that the appeal was listed for final hearing and that they immediately notified their counsel regarding the deaths of respondent No.9 and his son Hanumanthu, and requested necessary steps to bring petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on record as legal representatives. He further contended that their failure to take timely action was not deliberate but due to their unawareness of the status of the appeal suit. Therefore, they could not file applications to bring the legal representatives on record, which led to abatement of the appeal as against respondent No.9. The delay is neither intentional nor negligent. Given that the original suit relates to partition of family property. Therefore, counsel for respondent No.9 prayed the Court to allow I.A.No.1 to 3 of 2023.

3.3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 15 in I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2023 has filed a counter affidavit, vehemently denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that respondent Nos.13 to 15 were not parties to the original suit but were later impleaded in the appeal proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioners have sought to condone an inordinate delay of 4197 days in filing an application for substitution as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.9, which is wholly unjustified and that the averments in the interlocutory applications are false, misleading, and devoid of merit, and that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. He further submitted that the petitioners suppressed material facts and failed to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, rendering the applications defective and not maintainable. The petitioners have not filed any death certificates or documents establishing their relationship with the deceased, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. He further submitted that the appeal abated by operation of law, and that t