IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ATMAKUR

PRESENT: Sri Naga Sasidhara Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur
FAC Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018

I.A.No. 278 of 2016

in
O.S.No.50/2012

BETWEEN:-

1. Kanamala Venkata Seshamma (died)

2. Kanamala Narasaiah Swamy
3. Avula Venkatarathna Kumari ... Petitioners/Proposed parties/Plaintiffs

And

Banala Vijaya ... Respondent/Defendant

This Petitions coming on 05.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

C.Chenchaiah and Sri Ch. Harikrishna, Advocates for the Petitioners/Proposed

parties/plaintiffs and of Sri S.Mahadeva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/

defendant, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court

delivered the following :-

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed under Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure code to add the

proposed party as legal heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff in filing the petition to

proceed with the suit.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the

defendant for grant of permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit the

sole plaintiff died on 15.06.2016 leaving behind her the proposed parties herein.

Hence, prayed to permit them to implead them as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the place of

the deceased sole plaintiff to prosecute the suit against the defendant, otherwise,

they will put to irreparable loss and injury.

3. The case of the respondent/defendant is

that the allegations in the petition affidavit are all false except those that are
specifically admitted by her. The petitioners alone are not the legal heirs of the
deceased plaintiff. The deceased plaintiff also had her eldest son Ramanaiah and
he predeceased her leaving behind him his wife Manoja. She is also the legal heir of
the deceased plaintiff, as she is not impleaded in the petition. The petition is not
entitled and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
2

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following point is to be considered:

“Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed?”

5. On behalf of the petitioners and respondent no oral or documentary evidence

is produced.

6. Heard and I have perused the entire material available on record.

POINT

7. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the legal heirs of the deceased

sole plaintiff as she died on 15.06.2016 and hence, and therefore they filed petition

for adding of legal heirs of the sole plaintiff. Whereas, the respondent denied the

same and contends that there is another legal heir who is Manoja wife of elder son

of sole plaintiff as her son is predeceased and without impleading her, the petition is

not maintainable.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no dispute

that the proposed parties are the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff

and succeeded to the estate of the deceased sole plaintiff and therefore, they are

entitled for the relief as prayed. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that this petition is not maintainable without adding another legal heir and

therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. At the outset, it has to be seen as to whether the petition is maintainable

without adding another person by name Manoj who is the daughter-in-law of sole

plaintiff. As seen from the records, the petitioners consistently pleaded that they

are only the legal heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff. The respondent contends that

without adding the daughter in law as party to the suit, it is not maintainable.

10. On the pleadings of the parties and having regard to over all facts and

circumstances of the case, it is seen that it is the will and pleasure of the proposed

parties to look into the matter and the respondent cannot dictate the terms to the

legal heirs of the sole plaintiff, as it is clear that the proposed parties consistently

stated they are the legal heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff and the petitioners are

having interest over the property mentioned in the suit and if the suit is contested

no injustice will be caused to both parties and the cause shown by the petitioners
// 3 //

for adding them as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, in my opinion, sufficient. In this case, the

petitioners submitted that they are having good grounds to defend their case and if

they are refused to contest the suit, they will put to loss and injustice will be caused

to them.

11. As seen from the entire record, I see that the version and explanation given

by the proposed parties is found to be true and in view of the above discussion and

to see that substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side. Further,

the adding of the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff will not suffer

the proceedings at any costs and the Respondent is at liberty file their

objections/written statement in the suit after adding the proposed parties as 2 nd and

3rd plaintiffs.

(i) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and above

discussion, I hold that the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against

the Respondent and the petition is to be allowed with a condition, to meet the ends

of justice.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed, but on condition that all the evidence

shall be filed in the suit and further directed to carryout amendment in the plaint

and to file neat copy of plaint and the Respondent/defendant is at liberty to file her

additional written statement if any within a week.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12 th day
of December, 2018.
Sd/- NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ATMAKUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
--N I L—

Sd/- NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ATMAKUR