THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP Nos.6069 of 2009 and 6086 of 2009 Common Order : Both these civil revision petitions are filed by the 1st defendant in the suit OS No.1097 of 2006 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The 1st respondent (died) and 2nd respondent herein (plaintiffs) being brothers, filed the said suit OS No.1097 of 2006 for permanent injunction against the 1st defendant-revision petitioner herein. The plaintiffs filed IA No.548 of 2006 seeking for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit and that IA was dismissed on 9-10-2006. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the temporary injunction application, the plaintiffs filed the present CMA No.10 of 2007 with a delay of 9 days. But as there was no petition filed to condone the delay, the CMA was returned and it is stated that the appeal was re-presented with an application to condone the delay of 9 days being IA No.3612 of 2006. It is stated that the first plaintiff (Yellapu Rama Rao) died on 21-12-2006 and the IA filed to condone the delay was allowed on 25-1-2007 and thereafter the appeal was numbered being CMA No.10 of 2007. During the pendency of the CMA, the present IA No.153 of 2007 was filed under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC r/w. Rule 28(2) Civil Rules of Practice to bring on record the wife and son of deceased Yellapu Rama Rao (1st plaintiff) represented by their GPA holder, and his daughters as party respondents, for amendment of the cause title in the CMA and to set aside the abatement against them. By lower appellate Court, by the impugned order allowed the application, against which CRP No.6069 of 2009 is filed. CRP No.6086 of 2009 is filed against the order passed in IA No.1046 of 2009 condoning the delay of one day in filing an application to bring the LRs of the 1st plaintiff and for other reliefs. 2. Sri VLNGK Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner-1st defendant strenuously contended that the delay in filing the CMA could not have been condoned without there being the LRs of the 1st plaintiff brought on record in the condone delay petition IA No.3612 of 2006, and it is non-est in the eye of law. Learned counsel further contended that the Court below ought not to have allowed the GPA to represent the wife and son of the 1st plaintiff without obtaining permission of the Court and the procedure adopted by the Court below in allowing the IA No.153 of 2007 and giving permission to the GPA is erroneous and contrary to law. 3. Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 herein, on the other hand, contended that earlier the LRs, wife and son of 1st plaintiff filed IA No.306 of 2007 through the GPA to bring them on record as plaintiffs 3 and 4 and that petition was allowed, but the revision petitioner herein-1st defendant filed civil revision petition being CRP No.3074 of 2009 against that order and this Court by order dated 24-7-2009 allowed the CRP and directed the trial below to consider the matter afresh and the said IA is pending for enquiry. It is stated that thereafter IA No.153 of 2007 was filed to condone the delay of one day in filing the LR petition in the appeal, but due to mistake, the prayer to set aside the abetment could not be mentioned. Learned counsel further submitted that technicalities cannot come in the way of rendering complete justice to the parties and, therefore, the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is pending on the file of trial Court and the suit is of the year 2006. It is also borne out from the record that the 1st defendant-revision petitioner herein also filed a counter suit being OS No.1198 of 2006 which is also pending on the file of the same Court. It so happened that the injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs in the present suit and the injunction application filed by the 1st defendant in the suit filed by her came to be considered by the trial Court together and were disposed of by common order dated 9-10-2006. The IA filed by the plaintiffs in the present suit was dismissed and the IA filed by the 1st defendant was allowed. Against the dismissal of the injunction application, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present CMA. It is also on record that the LRs. of the 1st plaintiff also filed appeal being CMA No.115 of 2008 as the 1st defendant filed counter suit only against the deceased 1st plaintiff. 5. Coming to the facts of the case in these revision petitions, it is true that the LRs of 1st plaintiff ought to have been brought the on record, but even before the LRs could be brought on record, the IA filed to condone the delay in filing the CMA was allowed. According to the death certificate, which is filed as material papers along with the counter of the respondents 3 and 4, the 1st plaintiff died on 21-12-2006 and the IA filed to condone the delay by the plaintiffs was allowed on 25-1-2007, i.e. after one month from the date of the death of the 1st plaintiff. It is settled proposition of law that no order can be passed against a dead person and even if such an order is passed it is non-est in the eye of law. Unless the LRs. of a deceased party are brought on record, there is no hearing of appeal in the eye of law, as has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in JALADI SUGUA (DEAD) thru LRs. Vs. SATYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ( AIR 2008 SC 2866 ). But in the instant case, there is no dispute as to the persons sought to be brought on record as LRs, they being the wife and son of the deceased 1st plaintiff. Inasmuch as no prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner and her rights are not effected, perhaps no exception can be taken to the same which is more a technical flaw and the main object is to advance the cause of justice and put a quietest to the litigation. 6. The question of allowing E.Gurunadha Sastry, the GPA holder for respondents 3 and 4 to prosecute the case on behalf of them, it is clear from a copy of the GPA filed as material papers, the LRs. of the 1st plaintiff, who are wife and son, respondents 3 and 4 herein executed a registered GPA in his favour to represent their estate including to prosecute the civil cases etc. As already noted above, the revision petitioner herein also filed counter suit OS No.1198 of 2006 against the deceased 1st plaintiff, and against the dismissal of the injunction application, the LRs of the 1st plaintiff filed CMA No.115 of 2008 and it is stated that CMA No.115 of 2008, is being prosecuted by the LRs. of the deceased 1st plaintiff through the GPA holder. 6. On the above analysis of the matter, I do not find any merits in these civil revision petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. However, to meet the ends of justice, the lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal CMA No.10 of 2007 and the connected CMA No.115 of 2008 filed by the LRs of the 1st plaintiff, in accordance with law, expeditious within a period one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also expedient that the trial Court dispose of the suits being OS No.1097 of 2006 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein and the counter suit OS No.1198 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioner herein, expeditiously, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: March, 2010 Nrg.