THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.923 of 2006 Date: 18.2.2011 Between: D. Nagappa (died per L.Rs) D. Narsamma ……….. Petitioners/D.Hrs./Plaintiffs And P. Moulali Saheb ……. Respondent/J.Dr/ Defendnat. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.923 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order and decree dated 07.2.2006 made in E.A.No.643 of 2005 in E.P.No.54 of 2004 in O.S.No.427 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Dhone. It appears that the husband of the petitioner herein late Nagappa was the decree holder in O.S.No.427 of 2002 against the respondent herein. He filed E.P.No.54 of 2004 for realization of the amount. During pendency of the E.P., the decree holder died on 12.10.2004. However, no memo was filed before the Court intimating the death of the 1st decree holder. However, the petitioner herein filed an application dated 28.9.2005 stating that she had been residing at Hospet Karnataka Sate at her parents’ house due to some family dispute with her husband/1st decree holder and that on 5.7.2005, she came to know about the death of her husband, who died due to heart attack on 12.10.2004 and therefore, she may be added as decree holder in the E.P., since she was sole legal heir of her husband/1st Dhr. The lower Court observing that it is strange to note that a wife contended that she came to know about the death of her husband on 5.7.2005 when he died on 17.10.2004 and that the petitioner did not file any LR certificate to show that she is the L.R of the deceased, dismissed the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to file relevant document, to prove that she is the legal heir of the original decree holder and that there was sufficient cause for the delay in approaching the Court. There is no representation for the respondent in spite of service of notice on him. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity? It appears that the petitioner had been residing at Hospet in Karnataka State. Her case is that due to differences with her husband she was residing separatel. Though it is strange to note that she claims that she had no information about the death of her husband for more than six months, but on this ground alone her case cannot be dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and particularly the contention of the petitioner that she was residing at Hospet at Karnataka State at her parents’ house due to some disputes with her husband, I consider it just and reasonable to give an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner may file necessary documents to substantiate her claim and file better affidavit before the lower Court. Subject to the observations made supra, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:18.2.2011 mrb