Kunda Suharlatha (Died) v. Shaik Mohatad Fazullunnisa

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2132 OF 2017 O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.03.2017 in I.A. No. 924 of 2016 in I.A. No. 344 of 2013 in I.A. No. 876 of 1997 in O.S. No. 242 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court at Nellore. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 242 of 1983 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed on 15.11.1996. I.A. No. 876 of 1997 was filed to pass a final decree. Therein, I.A. No. 344 of 2013 was filed seeking to direct the Advocate-Commissioner, who was appointed in the final decree proceedings, to allot 1/15th share of the vendor of the petitioner out of the plaint schedule property. Since the 1st petitioner died, I.A. No. 924 of 2016 has been taken out to recognize petitioners 2 and 3 herein and one Smt. Kunda Shravani, who are her legal representatives, as petitioners 2 to 4 in I.A.No. 344 of 2013. That Application was dismissed with costs by an elaborate order running into eight pages. Hence, the Revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that I.A.No. 344 of 2013 itself is not maintainable and hence, the question of impleading the petitioners in that I.A. as legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner, does not arise.

Having considered the respective submissions, the fact remains that I.A.No. 344 of 2013 was filed by the deceased 1st petitioner, who is a claimant with respect to certain property,

which is subject matter of the suit for partition. Whether she is entitled for a share or not, is a matter, which is required to be adjudicated, if not done already. I.A. No. 924 of 2016 is limited to the extent of bringing the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner on record. In that view of the matter, the scope of consideration of I.A.No. 924 of 2016, at best, would be an inquiry with regard to the fact whether the petitioners are legal representatives or not. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that I.A.No. 344 of 2013 is not maintainable, is concerned, it is a matter that is required to be decided and admittedly, the said Application is still pending. In those circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 27.03.2017 in I.A.No.924 of 2016.

It is needless to say that the Court below shall decide I.A. No. 344 of 2013, on its own merits, taking into consideration all aspects, including its maintainability, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since that Application was filed in 2013, it shall be disposed of within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 30th June 2017 ksld