IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 5737 of 2008 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India., to revise the order dated 4.12.2008 in IA.No. 702of 2008 in A.S.No. 35 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Between: Mutyala Hanumanthu Died by his Legal Heir and Son Mutyala Laxminarayana, S/o. Late Hanumanthu C/o. Barber Shop Opp: Varalaxmi Book Depot, Chinna Bazar Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Faiz Mohammad Khan, S/o. Hasankhan, R/o. Writers Basti, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Kothagudem Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Kothagudem. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR The Court made the following : PSR, J. C.R.P.No. 5737 of 2008 Order: This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem passed in I.A.No. 702 of 2008 in A.S.No. 35 of 2000. The aggrieved petitioner in the above interlocutory application is the petitioner in this revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the court below. 2. The relevant facts are: The first respondent, Faiz Mohammed Khan, filed O.S.No. 435 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against Muthyala Hanumanthu, father of the present petitioner, as well as the Kothagudem Municipality, the second respondent herein. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the above decree, father of the present petitioner filed A.S.No. 35 of 2000 and during the pendency of the appeal, Hanumanthu died, leaving the present petitioner as his sole legal representative. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for impleading him as the legal representative of late Hanumanthu. In the petition, the date of death of late Hanumantu is is mentioned as 15-2- 2003. 3. The contesting first respondent herein, filed counter, inter alia, contending that Muthyala Hanumanthu, father of the present petitioner, died in November, 2002; but not on 15.2.2003. As such the suit abated, as the petition to bring the LRs on record was not filed within time. It is also contended that the petitioner herein is not the sole legal representative of late Hanumanthu and there are other legal representatives also. 4. Though, incidentally, several contentions are raised, the main dispute is with regard to the date of death of late Muthyala Hanumanthu. 5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1, apart from examining two other witnesses Pws 2 & 3. He filed death certificate dated: 3.10.2008 issued by the Village Secretary, Gramapanchayat Laxmidevipally, which is marked as Ex A-1. The first respondent herein examined himself as RW-1 and filed death certificate of Muthyala Hanumanthu dated:30-10-2008. He also produced a letter of the Village Secretary, Gramapanchayat, Laxmidevipalli, marked as Ex B-2. 6. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the material on record, held that the certificate of death filed by the petitioner, marked as Ex A-1, is a false document and accordingly dismissed the petition holding that Muthyala Hanumanthu died in November, 2002. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 7. As per PW-1, his father, Muthyala Hanumanthu demised on 15.2.2003. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the first respondent herein never filed any Memo into the court informing about the death of Hanumanthu in November, 2002. PW-1 has stated that he performed the final ceremonies of his father, which was attended by his relatives on 24.3.2003. After completion of death ceremonies, he has informed about the death of his father to the Gramapanchayath, Laxmidevipally. According to him, he filed a petition to bring him as legal representative of the deceased, Hanumanthu into the court on 17.3.2003 which was entered at S.R.No.901 of CR-17 and the appeal was disposed of without disposing of the said petition. Therefore, he filed a review petition and got the appeal reopened. According to the petitioner the petition filed by him on 17.3.2003 was mis-placed in court records, as such he filed a copy of the said petition, substituting the original petition, which was registered as I.A.No.702 of 2008. According to him, there was omission on the part of Gramapanchayat Laxmidevipalli in entering the information about the death of his father, which he came to know after the first respondent objected about the correctness of the date of death. Therefore, he made an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, the competent authority to inquire into the matter, who after conducting enquiry issued an order for recording the date of death of his father, Muthyala Hanumanthu, in the Gramapanchayat and on the basis of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, the same was registered. Pws 2 and 3 spoke about the death of the father of the petitioner. Their evidence, however, is not of substantial importance, as it is oral evidence. 8. The contesting first respondent, who examined, himself, as RW-1, stated that the father of the petitioner died in November, 2002. He admitted that he did not file any Memo into the court informing about the death of the deceased. He also admitted that in his counter filed In I.A.No. 371 of 2005, disposed of earlier in the same litigation, he did not mention that Hanumanthu demised in November, 2002. He also admitted that he has no document to show that Hanumtnhu died in November, 2002. The record reveals that C.R.P.No. 2487 of 2008 was filed before this court, in which there was reference about I.A.No. 371 of 2005, an earlier petition filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC. RW-1 has further stated that he has no knowledge, whether the Revenue Divisional Officer,Kothagudem conducted enquiry and directed the authorities of Gramapanchayat, Laxmidevipalli to record the information of the death of Hanumanthu on 15.2.2003 and he is also not aware as to whether Ex A-1, certificate was issued after following due procedure. He also stated that he made an application before the RDO, Kothagudem challenging the issuance of Ex A-1, but did not produce a copy of the same. 9. Thus, admittedly, Ex A-1 was issued by the Gramapanchayt, Laxmidevipally, in pursuance of the orders of the RDO, who conducted an enquiry into the matter and the first respondents admits that he has challenged the same. If that is so, order with regard to issuance of Ex A-1 certificate has become final and now the first respondent cannot dispute the same. Further more, admittedly, in the earlier I.A.No. 371of 2005, he did not plead that Hanumanthu died in November, 2002. Even now, the first respondent is unable to mention the exact date of death of Muthyala Hanumanthu; but vaguely says that he died in November, 2002. 10. Under these circumstances, when the certificate Ex A-1, with regard to the date of death of late Muthyala Hanumanthu was issued after conducting inquiry by the competent authority; when the contesting respondent had not challenged the same or even other wise, as long as Ex A-1 is in force, the same has to be accepted. Further, the evidence of PW-1, who is the son of the decreased, Muthyala Hanumanthu, has to be given preference to the vague evidence adduced by the other side, the date of death of Muthyala Hanumanthu has to be accepted to be 15.2.2003. 11. In all these circumstances, I am inclined to uphold the contention of the petitioner that late Muthyala Hanumanthu demised on 15.2.2003 and in view of the same, the revision petition is liable to be allowed. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in I.A.No.702 of 2003 is set aside. Consequently the IA.No. 702 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. August 7, 2009. *BVS