APHC010316742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1582 OF 2025 Between: 1. N. GOVINDASWAMY NAIDU, S/o Chengalaraya Naidu, aged about 57 years, residing at D.No.10-2, Srinivasa Gas Agencies, near Leela Mahal, Tirupati town. Post and Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. N MANOHAR, S/o P.Nagaiah (Died) 2. N Laila, W/o. Late N. Manohar, Aged about 45 years, employee. Residing at plot No.23, Near M.G.Brothers layout, Avilala Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents 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 allow this CRP by setting aside the Docket order passed in E.P. No. 100 of 2017 in O.S. No. 644 of 2009, before the Court Of The Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), At Tirupati., dated 27-02-2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Order attachment of the petition schedule property and restrain the respondents from alienating or encumbering the said property in any manner pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: V NITESH Counsel for the Respondents: P VENKATA RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: ORDER Heard Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The decree holder filed the present revision against the order, dated 27.02.2025 in E.P.No.100 of 2017 in O.S.No.644 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Tirupati. 3. The decree holder filed suit O.S.No.644 of 2009 against the defendants (husband and wife) for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 13.11.2013. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.100 of 2017 under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66, for execution of the decree. 4. Pending the E.P., judgment debtor No.1 died due to ill health on 22.11.2023. Learned counsel for judgment debtors filed a memo on 19.12.2022, stating as follows: “It is submitted that in the above E.P., the 1st J.Dr N. Manohar died due to ill-health on 22.11.2022 at TTD Central Hospital, Tirupati. Hence, this J.Dr.No.1 is having only wife i.e. J.Dr No.2 M. Laila. It is further submitted that, the 1st J.Dr is having legal heris i.e. wife M. Laila, J.Dr.No.2, his mother Smt. P. Chakramma, wife of late P. Nagaiah, his father also died four years back, and having only brother and he is residing in North India and he has three sisters who are residing in surrounding of Tirupati. Hence, this memo.” 5. On 02.01.2023, the decree holder filed a memo requesting to furnish the particulars and the details of other legal heirs of judgment No.1. Since no particulars were furnished, the decree holder filed another memo, dated 28.10.2024, wherein it was stated as follows: “The Decree Holder (Dhr) served a memo to the counsel of the Jdrs requesting the particulars of the deceased’s L.Rs., but there has been no response. Thus, the Dhr concludes that Jdr.No.2, the wife of Jdr.No.1, is the only legal heirs of the deceased and is already involved in the proceedings Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Hon’ble Court consider this submission and issue necessary orders as deemed fit and proper.” 6. The executing court, by order dated 27.02.2025 dismissed the E.P. holding that the decree holder failed to take steps to bring the legal representatives of judgment debtor No.1, despite an opportunity. The executing court also held that in the absence of taking steps to bring the legal representatives of judgment debtor No.1, on record, the E.P. cannot be continued in the present form and nature. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the suit was filed against two defendants, namely N. Manohar, S/o P. Nagaiah and N. Laila, W/o N. Manohar. After the decree was passed in the suit, E.P.No.100 of 2017 was filed against two judgment debtors. Pending the E.P., judgment debtor No.1 died on 22.11.2023. Of course, learned counsel for the judgment debtors filed a memo stating that other legal heirs are also there. However, as seen from the memo dated 19.12.2022, the particulars or addresses of the legal representatives were not mentioned, to enable the decree holder to bring them on record. 8. In fact, the decree holder immediately filed a memo on 02.01.2023, requesting the learned counsel for the judgment debtors to furnish the particulars of the legal representatives. However, no particulars were furnished except for stating the names as mentioned in the memo dated 19.12.2022. Thereafter, the decree holder filed another memo dated 28.10.2024, stating that the particulars of legal representatives of judgment debtor No.1 are not furnished and hence, judgment debtor No.2 be recognised as the only legal heir. 9. When the estate of judgment debtor No.1 is represented by judgment debtor No.2, who is his wife, the question of abatement does not arise. In Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram1, at para No.9, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 7. Even on the alternative ground that Mahabir Prasad being one of the heirs of Saroj Devi there can be no abatement merely because no formal application for showing Mahabir Prasad as an heir and legal representative of Saroj Devi was made. Where in a proceeding a party dies and one of the legal representatives is already on the record in another capacity, it is only necessary that he should be described by an appropriate application made in that behalf that he is also on the record, as an heir and legal representative. Even if there are other heirs and legal representatives and no application for impleading them is made within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, the proceeding will not 1 AIR 1971 SC 742 abate. On that ground also the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.” 10. During the course of argument, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the decree holder could have taken steps at least to bring the mother of the deceased on record by mentioning the address of the judgment debtor No.1. 11. The execution petition was filed under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 C.P.C. for execution of the dated 13.11.2013. Dismissing the E.P. on the ground that the decree holder failed to bring the other legal heirs of judgment debtor No.1 on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable. 12. In Binod Pathak v. Shankar Choudhary2, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “Rule 10A of Order XXII is salutary in nature. It has been introduced to mitigate hardship arising from the fact that a suit, appeal or other proceeding may take long time and a party to a suit, appeal or other proceeding may die and the other party may not be aware of such a situation. Rule 10A seeks to do justice over technicalities by requiring an advocate appearing for the party to intimate the court about the death of his client and provides an opportunity to the other side to take necessary steps to bring heirs and legal representatives of the deceased party on record. Rule 10A is thus not an empty formality.” 13. In the case at hand, no doubt, the learned counsel for judgment debtors informed the Court about the death of judgment debtor No.1 by filing a memo. However, the particulars of legal representatives were not mentioned. Along with the memo, the advocate should have furnished the particulars of the legal 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1411 representatives. Merely filing a memo without furnishing particulars, in the opinion of this Court, is non-compliance with Order 22 Rule 10A. 14. Apart from that as observed supra, the estate of the deceased is being represented by judgment debtor No.2 and hence dismissing the E.P. is not justifiable. 15. Given the discussion, the order under revision brooks interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 27.02.2025 in EP.P.No.100 of 2017 in O.S.No.644 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Tirupati, is hereby set aside and E.P.No.100 of 2017 is restored to file. The Executing Court shall expedite the proceedings. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 21.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No