IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Civil Revision Petition Nos.52, 54 and 59 2025 THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Boinepalli Krishna Rao …Petitioner AND Vangapalli Rama (died) and 4 others …Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred aggrieved by the orders dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Macherial Camp Court at Luxettipet in I.A.No.307 of 2024 and I.A.Nos.308 and 309 of 2025, both in O.S.No.98 of 2017.

2. Heard Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.4/defendant No.4 and Sri MRS Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/petitioner/proposed plaintiff.

3. The above Interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.307, 308 and 309 of 2024 were filed to bring the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on record, to condone the delay of (7) days in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and for setting aside the order of abatement.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein seeking partition and separate possession and cancellation of Gift Settlement Deeds bearing Nos.1873 of 2017 and 1874 of 2017, both dated 07.03.2017. The suit was at the stage of trial and at that juncture, the plaintiff died on 20.04.2024 leaving behind her husband i.e. respondent No.2 herein as the legal heir. The deceased plaintiff’s husband filed petition under Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC to implead him as plaintiff No.2 in the main suit as legal heir of his wife. In said petition, the petitioner herein filed counter alleging that there is a delay of (7) days in filing the petition under Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC and therefore, said petition is not maintainable until and unless petitions are filed to condone the delay of (7) days and to set aside the abatement occurred.

5. Upon filing of the counter and after a lapse of two months, respondent No.2 filed petition to condone delay and a petition to set aside the abatement. All the interlocutory applications have been allowed by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.

6. During arguments, it is submitted that respondent No.2 who sought to implead himself as legal heir of the deceased plaintiff ought to have filed petition to condone delay, to set aside abatement and to implead himself. Instead, he filed only petition vide I.A.No.307 of 2024 to implead himself as legal heir under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC. Further, it is submitted that no cogent reason is given for filing the petition with delay. Lastly, it is emphasized that after filing of counter, respondent No.2 has taken two months of time to come up with the two new petitions i.e.

I.A.No.308 of 23024 to condone delay and I.A.No.309 of 2024 to set aside abatement. In view of this conduct, the revision petitioner/defendant No.4 prayed that the Civil Revision Petitions be allowed and the Interlocutory applications be dismissed.

7. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balwant Singh (dead) v.

Jagdish Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 685, wherein, it is held as under:

“32. It must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly.

33. Furthermore, it is also a well-settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such an interpretation to the provisions which would render the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacte