HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA O.S.A.No. 13 of 2010 Date: 11-04-2011 Between: M/s. Cyrus Investments Ltd ……… Petitioner and Bahadurunnisa Begum and othes ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA O.S.A.No. 13 of 2010 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant, who happens to be defendant No.206 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 05-11-2004 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in allowing Application No.1076 of 2004, which is purported to be an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the defendant No.32 who died earlier. Heard Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Anitha Swain and Mr. M.A. Bari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Briefly the facts, which gave rise to these proceedings, are that in the aforesaid proceedings in C.S.No.14 of 1958, the deceased, through whom the petitioners-respondents 1 to 5 herein claim as legal representatives, was shown as defendant No.32 by name Bahadurunnisa Begum W/o. Navab Khubtulla Khan, who is stated to have died on 24-09-1972. Thereafter, her legal representative namely Azizunnisa Begum W/o. Iftekaruddin Khan, who was treated as her sole legal representative, also died on 18-11-1981. Now the present application is filed in the year 2004 by the alleged legal representatives to come on record. The learned single Judge, by taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant herein, allowed the application only on the ground that by recognizing the petitioners therein as L.Rs, no specific or independent right as such is conferred on them. At most, they may become entitled to take part in the final decree proceedings. Hence, this Appeal. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the question involved in this appeal is squarely covered by similar such situation and a precedent as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.23 of 2008, dated 09-04-2009 which in turn followed the earlier orders in O.S.A.No.47 of 2006 passed by another Division Bench of this Court. From the aforesaid facts and also on a reading of both the judgments as referred to above on behalf of the appellant, it is seen that defendant No.32, through whom the petitioners-respondents 1 to 5 claim as legal representatives, died as long back as on 18-11-1981 and the present application is filed in the year 2004. There is absolutely no explanation, much less, which could have been accepted by the Court on their behalf. Be that as it may. The proceedings in C.S.No.14 of 1958 have been pending all along and no party, be it the original parties or any of the legal representatives, could claim innocence or totally not aware of the same and try to fall back on any knowledge as such. Admittedly the preliminary decree was passed long back and the appellant’s claim, as could be evident from the chequered events at all levels including up to the Supreme Court, has been upheld. Further it is a case where the parties have already parted with the properties and as per the Mohammedan Law, the question of claiming any rights or vested rights as per the Matruka does not arise. Even as on the date of death, the deceased defendant has no such subsisting right which can be claimed by the legal representatives. In view of the aforesaid reasons and also for the reasons already mentioned in both the orders, as referred to above, passed by the other two Division Benches of this Court, we are of the view that the petitioners in Application No.1076 of 2004 are not entitled to come on record. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The order, dated 05-11-2004 in Application No.1076 of 2004 is set aside. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 11-04-2011 YCR