A trial court must pass a reasoned order addressing all rival contentions regarding maintainability, limitation, and the legal status of a suit instituted against a deceased person before allowing an application for impleadment of legal representatives.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2021 in IA No.1312 of 2019 in OS No.79 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior City Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal.

2. Heard Sri P. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and none appeared for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the present dispute arises out of a suit in OS No.79 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants collectively or individually, their agents, henchmen, anti-social elements or any one claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property situated at Doolapally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The plaintiff claims to have acquired the property through a registered sale deed and asserts that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed a written statement and counter claim wherein they contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to their predecessor, late Gorrenkala Balaiah, and that the property devolved upon them through succession. They claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and dispute the title and possession claimed by the plaintiff. A crucial fact is defendant No.1 i.e., Gorrenkala Veeramma had already died on 01.02.2015, much prior to the institution of the suit in the year 2019. However, despite her death, she was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit. This resulted in a foundational legal defect in the proceedings, as the suit was instituted against a dead person.

6. After filing of the suit and upon becoming aware of the death of defendant No.1, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No.1312 of 2019 under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission of the Court to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1. The petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the suit had been filed for perpetual injunction and that summons was issued to the defendants. It was further submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 4 had already filed their written statement and counter claim, wherein they themselves stated that defendant No.1 had expired on 01.02.2015. Based on this information, the plaintiff sought to implead the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1 to ensure proper adjudication of the case and to meet the ends of justice.

7. The plaintiff specifically identified the legal heirs of the deceased, including her husband i.e., defendant No.3 and her children, and sought to bring them on record as defendant Nos.5 to 8. The petition emphasized that the presence of these legal representatives was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

8. The defendants opposed the said application by filing a counter affidavit contended that the petition was not maintainable either on facts or in law. Their principal objection was that Order XXII Rule 4 CPC applies only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit, whereas in the present case, defendant No.1 died much before filing of the suit. Therefore, the entire application was based on a wrong provision of law.

9. They further contended that the suit itself was defective as it had been filed against a dead pers