NAKIREDDY VEERRAJU Vs. PAREPALLI APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .S.No.270 of 2014 has been filed against the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 15.12.2008, in O.S.No.149 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. A.S.No.102 of 2014 is filed against the order, dated 03.07.2013, in I.A.No.41 of 2013 in the same suit, whereby final decree in pursuance of the above - mentioned preliminary decree has been passed.

(2.) THE legal representatives of the original defendant, by name, Nakireddy Veerraju, filed both these appeals. It is the pleaded case of the appellants and the same is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that after the summons were served and before the first date of hearing of the suit itself, the original defendant died. But, neither the appellants were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant nor permission of the Court under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC was sought by the respondent/plaintiff for passing decree. In Zahirul Islam v. Mohd.Usman and others , the Supreme Court placing reliance on the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 CPC held that a decree passed without substituting the legal representatives of the deceased cannot be sustained unless permission was sought by the plaintiff for exempting him with the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, both the preliminary decree and final decree cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. O.S.No.149 of 2008 is restored to file. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram is directed to dispose of the suit after hearing all the parties within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.