HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3091 OF 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.06.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar in I.A.No.562 of 2023 in OS.No.2 of 2017.

2. Heard Sri Ch.V.R.Gupta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite service of notice on respondents, none appeared on their behalf. Hence, the matter is taken up for adjudication based on merits of the case.

3. The revision petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case required for adjudication of the present case is that the plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.2 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, against the defendants to declare the registered documents as null and void and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.3 expired, therefore, the plaintiff filed IA.No.562 of 2023 seeking to condone the delay of 1945 days in filing the L.R. application to bring the LRs of deceased defendant No.3 on record.

5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, dated 10.07.2023, the plaintiff averred that she came to know about the demise of defendant No.3 recently only and that after securing the details of LRs of defendant No.3, she filed an application to bring the LRs of defendant No.3 on record along with an application for condonation of delay of 1945 days in filing the said application and as such, the delay is not intentional, but only due to lack of knowledge of death of defendant No.3 and sought to condone the delay.

6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.06.2024 dismissed the said application with an observation that huge delay of 1945 days is not properly explained by the plaintiff. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

7. It is apt to refer to Rule 10-A of Order XXII CPC which reads as hereunder:-

“Whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know about the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.”

8. Thus, Rule 10(a) CPC casts a duty on the counsel appearing for a party to bring to the notice of the Court about the death of such party.

9. In the instant case, perusal of record reveals that as defendant No.3 was not represented by a counsel, he was set ex parte in the suit. Further, it appears that defendant No.4 is the brother of defendant No.3 and he is represented by a counsel and he along with other defendants also filed written statement in the suit. However, the fact of death of defendant No.3 was not brought to the notice of the Court at least by the counsel appearing for defendant No.4. Therefore, in the absence of any information from the side of the defendants regarding the factum of death of defendant No.3, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff was aware of death of defendant No.3.

10. In the above factual scenario of the case, the trial Court except recording that no proper reasons are assigned by the plaintiff for condonation of delay, did not examine as to whether Rule 10(a) of Order XXII CPC was followed or not.

11. For the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 28.06.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar in I.A.No.562 of 2023 in OS.No.2 of

2017 is set aside and I.A.No.562 of 2023 stands allowed.

12. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________________

JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:23.04.2025 dr