IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3063 OF 2024 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order, dated 25.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2021 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Between: Puchalapalli Pavan Kumar Reddy, S/o.P.Sriramulu Reddy, aged 45 years, R/o.401, Sri Leela Residency, 16-8-362, Ramalingapuram, Nellore. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Mulumudi Subbarmi Reddy (Died), (Died leaving behind him Respondents 2 to 4 are wife, son and daughter as his legal heirs) ...Respondent/Defendant 2. Mulumudi Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o.Mulumudi Subbarami Reddy, aged 50 years, R/o.D.No.7/136, Kapu Street, Kovur (V&M), SPSR Nellore District. 3. Mulumudi Hemanth Audisesha Reddy, S/o.Mulumudi Subbarami Reddy, aged 24 years, R/o.D.No.7/136, Kapu Street, Kovur (V&M), SPSR Nellore District. % 4. Mulumudi Yasaswini, D/o.Mulumudi Subbarami Reddy, aged 26 years, R/o.D.No.7/136, Kapu Street, Kovur (V & M), SPSR Nellore District. i % ...Respondents/Respondents/Proposed Defendants Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI C.SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent No.2:None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4;-- The Court made the following Order: APHC010553302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3063 OF 2024 Between; Puchalapalli Pavan Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND MulumudiSubbarmiReddydied and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.CSUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Order:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 25.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2021 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), to bring respondents 2 to 4 herein as legal representatives of deceased 1®‘ respondent dismissed. was 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. 3- The petitioner herein filed I Additional Civil Judge (Junior for recovery of money basing respondent herein/defendant died the petitioner filed I.A.No.170 of 2021 i Order XXII Rule 4 (1) CPC defendants 2 to 4 i respondent, vide the i O.S.No.2 of 2019 Division), Nellore against 1 on the file of the respondent, on a promissory note. It is stated that on 30.09.2020. Pursuant to the in the aforesaid said same. suit, under respondents 2 to 4 representatives of deceased 1 to permit him to bring in the suit, being legal as The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge impugned order dated 25.9.2024 on the ground of under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules non- compliance of requirements of Practice which stipulates that the Court XXII Rule 4 CPC, if all This Court perused the said I.A., wherein, ex defendants shall reject the petition filed the consequential under Order amendments are not listed. affidavit filed by the petitioner, iin support of the > except mentioning full cause title of the no other consequential proposed amendments to be incorporated in respondent/defendant and the plaint pursuant to death of 1 pursuant to such as incorporating the respondent during pendency of the suit; the portion of the suit, etc. adding of respondents 2 to 4 as his legal heirs factum of death of 1 consequential amendment to relief are mentioned, Unless all the consequential amendments are mentioned in the petition and the same are permitted by the Court, amended plaint cannot be filed into the Court, involved in the suit, opportunity cannot be denied to the petitioner to agitate his rights on merits, since it is only a procedural aspect. Further, be seen from the impugned order, the respondents 2 to 4 reported objection for bringing them on record. Further more. Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice contemplates rejection of the petition, not dismissal. Rejection involves non-compliance of a procedural issue, while dismissal suggests a substantive decision on the merits of the application. Since the matter involves procedural aspects, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner for adjudication of his rights on merits. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order dated 25.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2021 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the trial Court, shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file a better affidavit, incorporating all the details required under law, and proceed to dispose of I A. No.170 of 2021 afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Flowever, when substantive rights of the petitioner are / as can no The Court below The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. 4. I Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if Revision Petition shall any, pending in this Civil stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SB ON OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Civil Judge (Junior District. 2. One CC to Sri C.Subodh, Advocate 3. Three CD Copies Division), Nellore, SPSR Nellore [OPUC] BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3063 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS