APHC010091122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 484/2025 Between: Kappagantula Prabhakararao ...PETITIONER AND Kappagantula Lakshmisodemma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. This revision was filed against the order in I.A.No.1564 of 2019 in A.S.No.29 of 2019 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram dated 26.11.2024 dismissing the application for rejection of the appeal itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the observation made by the lower appellate court at para No.19 of the order dated 26.11.2024 which is as under: 2 “19. In the result, this court, while dismissing the application with costs, hereby directs both parties to the litigation to take steps for expedite disposal of L.R. petitions I.A.No.30/2020 and I.A.144/2021.” 3. He further submits that for the rejection of the above said I.A. to reject the above said appeal, he has no grievance but as the lower appellate court observed in para No.19 that the both parties to the litigation shall take necessary steps for expedite disposal of the L.R. petitions in I.A.No.30/2020 and I.A.No.144/2021, it may proceed with the said L.R. applications contrary to Order XXII Rule 5 C.P.C. As per proviso to Order XXII Rule 5 C.P.C., when a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant before the appellate court that court may before determining the question direct any subordinate court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence if any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons there for and the appellate court may take same into consideration in determining the question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while taking up the above said L.R. petitions, the lower appellate court may follow the procedure contemplated under Order XXII Rule 5 C.P.C. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that such a plea can also be taken by the petitioner before the lower appellate court to follow the procedure under Order XXII Rule 5 C.P.C. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, specifically when the learned 3 counsel for the petitioner has no grievance in the rejection of the above said I.A. for rejection of the main appeal itself, but on the observation made at para No.19 of the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 of the lower appellate court, as there was an observation by the said court directing the parties before it to take steps for expedite disposal of the L.R. petitions in I.A.No.30/2020 and I.A.no.144/2021, and as both the learned counsels submit that the procedure contemplated under Order XXII Rule 5 C.P.C. be followed, this court makes an observation that while considering the said L.R. petitions, the lower appellate court can decide the same upon the submissions made by the respective parties by applying the appropriate legal provision specifically considering the applicability of Order XXII Rule 5 of C.P.C. and appropriate decision shall be taken in accordance with law by the lower appellate court. 6. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 04.04.2025 NNN