THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 5064 OF 2009 AND 1145 OF 2010 DATED:01-06- 2010. CRP NO.5064 OF 2009 Between Rajesh Singh … Petitioner-D2 And 1.Smt.Manasa Devi and another …Respondents-Plaintiff and D1 CRP NO.1145 OF 2010 Between Smt.Manasa Devi … Petitioner-Plaintiff And 1.Rajesh Singh and another …Respondents-D2 and D1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 5064 OF 2009 AND 1145 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP 5064 of 2009 is filed against the docket order, dated 10-08-2009 and CRP 1145 of 2010 is filed against the docket order, dated 30-06-2009, in O.S.No.576 of 2005 on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Docket order, dated 30-06-2009 reads thus: “I.As. are dismissed. Parties are directed to argue on maintainability of suit on the death of D1. Argued. Suit is against mother only by a son for half share each. Mother died. So partition relief does not survive. Parties also agreed that they will not let in evidence for partition relief and let in evidence on other two reliefs only. For affidavit of plaintiff 08- 07-2009.” The above order seems to have passed without adverting to the pleadings. The 2nd defendant claims to be the adopted son of deceased- defendant No.1. That aspect of the case has to be adjudicated. In such a case, the issue of partition of properties has to be resolved basing upon the evidence that may be adduced by the parties. That mistake must have brought to the notice of the trial court later 3. Docket order, dated 10-08-2009 reads thus: “The suit was by a daughter against her mother (D1) and another (D2) for partition and cancellation of a gift deed executed by her mother in favour of D2. Mother died during pendency of the suit. Plaintiff reported no L.Rs. Defence of D2 is that he is adopted son of mother of plaintiff and her husband; disputed property is self acquired property of this adopted father; he gifted it to his wife (D1) who again gifted it to D2 and so he is the absolute owner. Plaintiff denied adopted and both the gifts. The adoption and the second gift have to be adjudicated upon. Any finding thereon makes relief of partition still survive. So death of D1 does not cease relief of partition. Both parties are therefore directed to proceed further on the relief of partition also on 17-08-2009” 4. Admittedly, the 1st defendant died. The 2nd defendant is claiming that he is the adopted son of Sajjan Singh and 1st defendant. Therefore, whether he is the legal representative of the 1st defendant or not has to be decided during the trial only. After passing the order, dated 10-08-2009, the parties are directed to proceed further on the relief of partition also. This order seems to be the correct order as per the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, to do substantial justice to the parties to resolve the controversy, the docket order, dated 30-06-2009, can be set aside. 5. Accordingly, CRP 5064 of 2009 is dismissed confirming the docket order, dated 10-08-2009 and CRP 1145 of 2010 is allowed setting aside the docket order, dated 30-06-2009, in O.S.No.576 of 2005, on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, liberty is given to the parties to let in evidence as per the pleadings. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:01-06- 2010 Hsd