IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3190 OF 2006 BETWEEN Annam Venkateswara Rao. …PETITIONER AND Veerapaneni Suseeladevi and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. P. SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: - ORDER: Plaintiff in O.S.No.443 of 1997 is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 19.06.2006 in I.A.Nos.1870, 1871 and 1872 of 2005 refusing to condone the delay in filing petitions to set aside abatement as well as to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased – defendant No.1. While the said suit was filed against four defendants, the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 have served a memo on the petitioner’s counsel on 17.08.2005 informing that defendant No.1 died on 15.09.1999 and defendant No.2 died on 27.03.1990. However, there appears to be different versions regarding the date of death of defendant No.2 inasmuch as even according to the contesting respondents 3 and 4 as stated in para 2 of the counter filed by them in I.A.No.1870 of 2005, that they obtained General Power of Attorney from defendants 1 and 2 on 24.03.1998. Though there is confusion with regard to the death of defendant No.2, it is not necessary to go into those aspects as this revision is confined to the petitioner’s applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and permit to bring on record the legal representatives only with respect to defendant No.1. 2. Based on the aforesaid intimation by the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 dated 17.08.2005 informing the death of defendant No.1 on 15.09.1999, the petitioner filed the aforesaid applications being I.A.No.1870, 1871 and 1872 of 2005. The said applications were contested by defendants 3 and 4, who have stated that the petitioner was having knowledge of the death of defendants 1 and 2 and it is also averred that summons itself contain the endorsement that defendant No.1 has already died. However, no steps were taken by the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below under the impugned order noticed that the petitioner ought to have taken steps after receiving intimation dated 17.08.2005 and on the ground that there is a delay of 1½ month thereafter, till the present application were filed on 04.10.2005, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. 3. Under Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a duty is cast upon the counsel to communicate the death of a party. In the present case, the intimation dated 17.08.2005 is given by the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 and it is the petitioner’s case that he did not given any details of the legal representatives and as such, the petitioner had to ascertain the said details and file the said applications, which took some time but had filed all the three applications on 04.10.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has taken steps within 90 days of intimation i.e. 17.08.2005 and the Court below was not justified in rejecting condonation of delay. 4. After hearing both the learned counsel and noticing the affidavits and counter affidavits of either party, it appears that contesting defendants 3 and 4 are claiming on the basis of GPA said to be executed in their favour by defendants 1 and 2 on 24.03.1998 and it is said that they have already filed another suit O.S.No.250 of 1998. It has, therefore, to be presumed that till 24.03.1998 both the defendants 1 and 2 were alive whereas the present suit was filed by the petitioner in 1997 as O.S.No443 of 1997 and after filing of the suit, presumably both the defendants were alive for quite some time. The petitioner, therefore, is justified in claiming that he came to know the death of defendant No.1 dated 15.09.1999 only through the intimation given by the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 on 17.08.2005 and thereafter, he has taken steps to ascertain the details of the legal representatives and filed all the three applications on 04.10.2005. The Court below, therefore, ought to have taken a realistic and liberal view and ought not have dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner has taken 1½ month after intimation, for filing the present applications. The said delay cannot be said to be excessive or abnormal so as to deny the relief to the petitioner. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that the application for condonation of delay being I.A.No.1870 of 2005 ought to have been allowed but unfortunately since the Court below declined to condone the delay, the other two consequential applications being I.A.No.1871 and 1872 of 2005 were also dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I.A.No.1870 of 2005 and consequential applications I.A.Nos.1871 and 1872 of 2005 deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 15, 2010 DSK