HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5480 OF 2011 DATE: 19-12-2011 BETWEEN: Thangi Seethamma (Died) Thangi Simhachalam and two others. - - - Petitioners/ Respondents. AND Gangu Appala Surana and another. - - - Respondents/ Petitioners. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5480 OF 2011 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the docket order dated 11-11-2009, passed in Review I.A. No.895 of 2008 in O.S. No.763 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S. No.763 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : Originally the suit was filed by one Thangi Seethamma seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein in O.S. No.763 of 2006. She filed I.A. No.1675 of 2006 seeking for temporary injunction, the said petition was heard and reserved for orders on 11-09-2007, but no orders were pronounced up to 08-10-2007. On 08-10-2007, the said Seethamma was died, then the petitioners 2 to 4 herein claiming to be the legal heirs of deceased Thangi Seethamma, filed I.A. No.897 of 2008 on 19-09-2008 to bring them as legal representatives of the deceased Thangi Seethamma. During the pendency of I.A. No.897 of 2008, the lower Court passed orders in I.A. No.1675 of 2006 granting injunction order in favour of Thangi Seethamma on 24-01-2008. Then, the respondents challenged the same by filing C.M.A. and also I.A. No.1209 of 2008 therein seeking to suspend the injunction order during the pendency of the said petition. The respondents filed I.A. No.895 of 2008 to vacate the injunction order on the ground that the injunction order was issued in favour of a dead person. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam allowed the said I.A. and vacated the injunction order granted on 24-01-2008. It appears that the C.M.A. was not pressed. 5. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that challenging the I.A. No.897 of 2008 to bring the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased Thangi Seethamma, they filed C.R.P. No.1847 of 2010 and this Court allowed the same on 09-09- 2010. It is to be seen that when I.A. No.1675 of 2006 was reserved for orders, and before passing any orders in that I.A., the plaintiff died and I.A. No.897 of 2008 to bring the legal representatives of the plaintiff was pending, the lower Court without considering pendency of I.A. No.897 of 2007 and without disposing of the said application, the lower Court seems to have passed orders in I.A. No.1675 of 2006. 6. Since it is submitted that the order passed by the lower Court in dismissing I.A. No.897 of 2008 had been set aside by this Court, in C.R.P. No.1847 of 2010 and since the petitioners were already brought on record as legal representatives of Thangi Seethamma, the lower Court ought to have heard the petitioners before passing orders in I.A. No.895 of 2008. In fact, in the cause title in I.A. No.895 of 2008, Thangi Seethamma is shown as dead. So, admittedly the Review I.A. No.895 of 2008 was filed against a dead person. No petition or a suit can be filed against a dead person, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge ought to have returned the same with an endorsement to bring the legal representatives of Thangi Seethamma in the said application. 7. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the lower Court with a direction to pass orders afresh. The respondents herein may file an application to add the legal representatives of Thangi Seethammma as parties to the Review I.A. No.895 of 2008 or file a fresh review application showing them as L.R.s of Thangi Seethamma. 8. Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also brought to my notice the judgment of this Court in case between Golla Krishna Murthy Vs. Golla Yellaiah (Died per his LRs[1], wherein it was observed that the judgment is however valid if the party dies after hearing of the case. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in case between Fathima Bee (died) Rep. by her LRs V. S. Ibrahim Sab (died) Rep. by his LRs[2] with regards to the steps to be taken to bring the LRs of the parties, wherein this Court dealt with Order 22 Rule 6 C.P.C. 9. In fact, the lower Court should have verified whether I.A. No.897 of 2008 was pending when the I.A. No.1675 of 2006 was reserved for orders. The lower Court before passing orders in I.A. No.1675 of 2006 ought to have passed orders in I.A. No.897 of 2008. So, even now the petitioners can also file an application to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased in I.A. No.1675 of 2006. So the applications to bring the legal representatives of the petitioner in I.A. No.1675 of 2006 and to bring the legal representatives of the respondent in I.A. No.895 of 2008 may be heard together and orders may be passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 19-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 230 CIVILL REVISION PETITION No.5480 OF 2011 December, 19, 2011 DSH [1] 2001 (5) ALT 645 (DB) [2] 2005 (1) ALT 649