IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 151 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dt.01.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.737 of 2023 in O.S.No.132 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District by allowing the same to dismiss the suit. Between: 1. Shaik Khamrunnisa Begum (died), 2. Shaik Mohammad Parvez, Son of late Mohammad Subhani, aged 45 years Permanent R/o. Chirala now residing at USA, Rep. by his GPA agent Penumatcha Devendra Raju Son of Satyanarayana Raju, Khajipalem village, Pittalavaripalem Mandal. ...Petitioner (Defendants) AND Goli Gangadhara Rao, son of Papa Rao, aged 49 years, R/o. Paparajuthota, Swarna Road, Chirala town and Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Respondent (Plaintiff) / " lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.N0.132 of 2015 during pendency of this revision petition against the orders in IA.No.737 of 2023 dt. 01.11.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.V. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SRINIVASULU P The Court made the following: APHC010023912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 151/2024 Between: Shaik Khamrunnisa Begum (died) and Others AND ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT Goli Gangadhara Rao Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.KVV1JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1.SRINIVASULU P The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.lSlof 2024 % ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 01.11.2023, dismissing I.A.No.737 of 2023 in O.S.No.132 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, filed under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to dismiss the suit as abated as the defendant No.1, Khamarunnisa Begum, died as long back as on 11.11.2017 and as there are no other persons to represent her in the suit. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance a. initially against Shaik Khamrunnisa Begum, a GPA holder of her son, Shaik Mohammad Parvez, based on an agreement of sale, dated Pending the suit, since the sole defendant died, an 11.09.2013. application was filed in I.A.No.1269 of 2019 under Order XXXII CPC to appoint a new GPA, by name, Penumatcha Devendra Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju and I.A.No.1270 of 2019 under Order VI rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. As both the petitions were allowed by the trial Court, C.R.P.Nos.678 and 679 of 2021 were preferred before this Court on the ground that the prayer in the petition is different from the prayer in the affidavit. While setting aside the orders in those petitions and allowing the revision petitions, by order, dated 12.05.2023, liberty was 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.lSlof 2024 given to the respondent in the revision petition/plaintiff to file a fresh petition under Order XXXII CPC and a consequential order was passed in IANo.1270 of 2019. Before a fresh application was filed by the plaintiff, the newly impleaded party, Shaik Mohammad Parvez, filed a petition in I.A.No.737 of 2023 under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the suit as abated as the 1 b. St defendant died long back on 11.11.2017 and there was no defendant on record in view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1270 of 2019. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter stating that there is no locus standi for the GPA holder, i.e., Penumatcha Devendra Raju, who gave affidavit in support of the petition in I.A.No.737 of 2023 to file petition as his locus standi ceased on 12.05.2023 when C.R.P.Nos.678 & 679 of 2021 were allowed and c. I.A.Nos.1269 and 1270 of 2019 were dismissed. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition was filed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that irrespective of the locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition, as on the date of the filing of the petition, since there was no defendant on 5. % BSB, J C.R.P.No.lSlof 2024 record, the trial Court ought to have recorded that the suit was abated for non-impleadment of the party in spite of the liberty given by this Court to file a petition afresh. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/pla intiff submitted that a separate application was filed to implead the correct party in view of the liberty given and the same petition is now pending before the trial Court, and therefore, the suit does not get abated. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent filing of the petition does not restore the suit which got abated. 8. The revision petition was disposed of on 12.05.2023 giving liberty to file petition afresh as aforesaid whereas I.A.No.737 of 2023 was filed 11.07.2023. Admittedly, as on 11.07.2023, no fresh petition was filed but it was filed subsequently. While giving liberty to file the fresh application, no time was stipulated in the order. on 9. Since the original defendant was only a GPA holder and the suit was filed against the GPA holder, but not the original party to the agreement represented by GPA holder, on the death of a GPA holder, her legal representatives cannot be brought on record and as such, the petition so filed in the past was withdrawn and later, I.A.nos. 1269 & BSB, J C.R.P.No.151 of 2024 1270 of 2019 were filed, however, only due to error, the orders passed therein were set aside with liberty to file application afresh. In fact, suit ought to be filed against the original party to the agreement though represented by a GPA holder. If at all, the GPA holder dies, a party can be represented by another/new GPA, if any, or else the party without being represented by any person shall be on record. In the present case, since the actual party to the agreement was not initially made as a defendant, there was no such occasion. Therefore, in view of the liberty given by the High Court in the previous revision petitions without stipulating time and as I.A.No.1265 of 2023 was filed on the day of dismissal of l.A.No.737 of 2023, the suit cannot be regarded as abated. 10. rule 10 CPC shall be The petition filed under Order I independently decided on merits as to whether the defendant can be permitted to be added at that juncture. For all these reasons, there is merit to grant the relief sought in I.A.No.737 of 2023. Though not for 11. no the reason that the person who gave the affidavit had no locus standi to file the petition, as it is for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to record whether the suit is abated or not irrespective of the locus standi of the party to file the petition. “S 6 •1 BSB, J C.R.P.No.lSlof 2024 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 12. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR % //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Bapatia District. 2. One CC to Sri. K.V. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Srinivasulu P., Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies Pmg sree HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.151 of 2024 X 0 3 MAR 2025 ) ^ . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS