IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF OCOTBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4500 of 2011 Between: Bhavani .. Petitioner AND Boya Narayanamma and 2 others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in E.A.No.89 of 2008 in E.P.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, dated 20-03-2009 by which the Execution Petition was dismissed as not maintainable and the attachment therein was raised allowing E.A.No.89 of 2008 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners in E.A.No.89 of 2008 claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased original defendant Boya Seshanna and contended that he died on 04-06-2006, while the decree holder obtained the decree against him on 29-06-2006 without disclosing his death to the trial Court and without bringing his legal representatives on record. Hence, they contended that the suit abated and the decree was a nullity. They further contended that the Execution Petition was, hence, not maintainable. The decree holder/the present revision petitioner did not contest E.A.No.89 of 2008 and on behalf of the petitioners therein PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. The Executing Court passed the impugned order noting that Ex.A.1- Death Certificate showed that B. Seshanna died on 4-6-2006, while the decree was passed against him on 29-06-2006. In view of Immadi Laxmi v. Sreyabhilashi Chit Funds, Khammam and others (2002 (1) ALT 411) irrespective of the knowledge of the plaintiff about the death of the defendant, the legal effect will be making the decree a nullity. Accepting the evidence for the petitioners in E.A.No.89 of 2008, the Executing Court had concluded that the decree, which was nullity, cannot be executed and hence, the consequent order. The revision petitioner/decree holder contended that the original defendant Boya Seshanna engaged an advocate and when his counsel failed to file written statement to contest the suit, he was set ex parte in the suit and the counsel for the defendant did not file any memo regarding the death of the original defendant Boya Seshanna. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the death of the defendant and hence, irrespective of the date of death, the decree is still executable, as the obligation under Order 22 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure was not discharged by the counsel for the defendant and hence, the decree holder desired the order to be reversed. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents are represented by Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in revision? The question of applicability of Order 22 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure arises only whenever a pleader is appearing for a party in a suit and the very grounds of revision mention that Boya Seshanna, who originally engaged an advocate, did not file any written statement and did not contest the suit and that the suit was ultimately decreed ex parte on 29-06-2006. Therefore, the question of the pleader appearing for Boya Seshanna, coming to know of the death of the party and informing the Court about it etc., under Order 22 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not arise. It is well settled, as extracted in the impugned order by the Executing Court with reference to a binding precedent from this Court, that the knowledge of the party about the death of the opposite party is not a relevant factor in considering whether the judgment and decree was rendered against a dead person, and therefore, was a nullity. There was positive evidence produced by the respondents about Boya Seshanna dying on 4-6-2006 and admittedly the suit was decreed ex parte on 29-6-2006 without anything being done to bring the legal representatives of Boya Seshanna on record before the decree. The question of Order 22 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure appearing to be relevant to the present case does not arise as the said provision has relevance only when the death occurs after the conclusion of the hearing and before pronouncement of the judgment. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the decree in question is null and void and the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Further Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-decree holder, submitted that when the right of the decree holder to approach the Court in the suit to condone the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of Boya Seshanna on record, to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives on record still subsists, such a right can be permitted to be exercised. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs, but, without prejudice to the rights of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff to approach the trial Court with appropriate applications for condonation of delay, setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of Boya Seshanna on record in the suit, which shall be considered by the trial Court on their own merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-10-2011 Ksn