APHC010465382013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION CRP No.3617 of 2013 Between: G.krishna Kumari & 6 Others and Others D L Narasimha Rao 2 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3617 & 3640 of 2013 CRP No.3617 of 2013 G.krishna Kumari & 6 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND D L Narasimha Rao 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): MANJUNATH ALLUR Respondent(S): [3365] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3640/2013 Between: G.krishna Kumari And 6 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND D L Narasimha Rao And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VENKAT RAO 3 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3617 & 3640/2013 The Court made the following Common Order: Sri Manjunath Allur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is present and Sri K.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondents appeared online. 2. O.S.No.26 of 2010 and O.S.No.78 of 2007 was filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, seeking certain reliefs. During the pendency of the suits, defendant No.1 therein died. Consequently, the plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A. No.403 and 404 of 2012 in the respective suits, seeking to implead the legal representatives of the defendant No.1, who were arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 9. 3. After due contest and hearing, the trial court allowed the petitions. Aggrieved by those orders, the said legal representatives have preferred these revisions. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners made his submissions with reference to the principles of limitation to bring legal representatives and on such failure to bring within time, the legal effect of abatment and the need for filing any application to 4 set aside abatment. On considering the facts and submissions and in view of the law laid down in M.Rama Murthy Vs A.Chinnappa (died) and others in 1990 (1) APLJ 162 and Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (deceased) & ors. Vs Satish Chandra (now deceased) in 2025 Live Law (SC) 194, this Court finds that the impugned orders are right on facts and law. 4. This court found no merits in these revision petitions. In the result, these revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J Dated: 27.03.2025 KKV 5 221 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3617 & 3640/2013 Dated: 27.03.2025 KKV