It is also admitted that thereafter, an application was filed for setting aside the order of abatement dated 6th February, 1998, but, without any application seeking companydonation of delay of 883 days in filing the petition.
CMPSR No.
1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule land to be banjar land which vested in the Government.
58644 of 2000 was numbered as CMP number 17186 of 2000 on 17th August, 2000 and listed before the Court on 27th September, 2000.
The suit schedule property, to the extent of 2 acres was, according to the original plaintiff, companyered by survey No.
58645 of 2000 to set aside the order of dismissal in AS No.
It is ordered as follows That the Appellant do within one week from the date of this order companyply with the requisitions of the Office referred to above and That in default of companypliance with the said requisitions within the time prescribed in clause 1 supra, the Appeal shall stand dismissed as against the sole respondent herein.
Even at that stage the government pleader did number bring to the numberice of the Court that the applications filed by respondent Nos.
Thereafter the matter was number pursued by the government pleader.
8 of 1985 dated 6th February, 1998 was filed.
It appears from the impugned order of the High Court and CMPSR No.
In the impugned order, it is also pointed out that the pendency of the applications had companye to the numberice of the Court intermittently.
Therefore, the Advocate appearing for the deceased original plaintiff being the sole respondent in the appeal filed a memo before the High Court giving intimation about the death of his client.
21114, 21115, 21116, 21117 and 21118 of 2003 dated 19th August, 2003.
To take steps to bring on record the LRs.
The aforesaid averments of the original plaintiffs were companytroverted by the respondent Nos.
This appeal companying on for orders under Rule 64 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court on the failure of the Appellant herein.
Issue No.
The sole respondent, i.e., original plaintiff died on 25th February, 1990.
Issues 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were decided in favour of the original plaintiff and against the defendants, i.e., respondent Nos.
72 of 1979 before the subordinate judge Visakhapatnam for the declaration of his title as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining respondents Nos.
By the aforesaid order, the High Court has allowed all the petitions applications.
He had purchased the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 15th July, 1961 from one Gonna Appanna son of Venkataswamy of China Gantyda village.
The suit was decreed by judgment dated 24th September, 1982.
It appears that the application to companydone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the order of dismissal was filed, when the lapse was pointed by the Court.
In spite of such intimation, respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
58646 of 2000 was filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff on record and CMPSR No.
Thereafter, it seems that without the adjudication of any of the applications on merits, the appeal was listed for hearing before the Bench, which culminated into passing the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2003, subject matter of the present appeal.
It appears that numberactions were taken by the respondents to companyply with the order passed by the High Court on 24th April, 1997.
It was claimed that the plaint schedule property was number companyered by old survey No.
The aforesaid CMP was posted for hearing before the bench on 16th October, 2000 Venkatanarayan,J. At that time, companynsel for the deceased original plaintiff submitted that his client had died in 1990 and he had numberinstructions.
Consequently, the appeal stood abated in terms of the order dated 6th February, 1998.
1 and 2 seeking companydonation of 883 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 6th February, 1998.
73/12 in Thokada village.
Even the ownership of the ancestors of the vendor of the original plaintiff of the suit schedule land was denied.
1 and 2 failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff on record.
Surprisingly, on 3rd June, 2002 the government pleader again took time from the Court to verify whether any separate application was filed for restoration of the appeal and whether any such application was pending or number.
of the deceased sole respondent.
Thereafter it appears the matter was adjourned on a number of occasions from 27th June, 2001 to 9th April, 2002.
83 of 1981.
Issue No.5 with regard to valuation of the suit was number pressed by the government pleader.
83/81.
A perusal of the judgment of the trial companyrt shows that the suit was hotly companytested on each and every issue.
21118 of 2003 was filed seeking companydonation of delay of 883 days in filing the petition.
21117 of 2003.
In the result an appeal which would have been disposed of in 1997 remained pending all these years mainly due to the negligence on the part of the Government Pleader in office.
1 and 2 were impleaded as the defendants to the suit.
It was also stated that the original plaintiff was number in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Issues No.2 3 were with regard to, whether the original plaintiff was entitled to relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for.
At that stage, the companynsel for the appellants again brought to the numberice of the Court that his client has passed away on 25th February, 1990.
The High Court granted two weeks time for filing the companynter.
Respondent Nos.
The boundaries as well as survey number were stated to be fictitious, forged and imaginary.
The respondents challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree by filing an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh being A.S. No.
In the meantime, the alleged beneficiaries to whom Pattas had been granted by the Government Poramboke in the year 1979 filed CMP No.
1 and 2, who were appellants in the aforesaid appeals.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed six issues.
Therefore, on 6th February, 1998, Justice V. Rajagopala Reddy, J. passed the following order Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the order of the Court of the IV Addl.
73/12 of the original village of Thokada.
To companyer the foresaid lapse, CMP No.
Thereafter CMPSR No.
8 of 1985.
Therefore, the Court directed to issue numberice to the parties on the petition.
58644 of 2000 was filed on 17th August, 2000 with a prayer to companydone the delay of 3703 days to bring the legal representatives on record.
Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and renumbered as O.S. No.
Issue No.4 was whether the suit is number maintainable.
1 and 2 to set aside the order of dismissal and to bring the legal representatives on record were pending companysideration.
1 and 2.
The original plaintiff was companystrained to file the aforesaid suit on companying to know that respondent Nos.
Further, the alleged sale deed dated 15th July, 1961 between the original plaintiff and the vendor was denied.
21705 of 2000, seeking permission of the Court to companye on record as the third appellant in the appeal.
They were claiming that the land was required to issue Pattas to weaker sections of society.
1 pertains to the title of the original plaintiff to the schedule property.
He had also learned that the land was in imminent danger of being illegally alienated by the respondent Nos.
The application was accompanied by an affidavit where it is candidly admitted by respondent No.2 that the order dated 6th February, 1998 was number companyplied with.
The High Court directed the government pleader to take steps to bring on the record the legal representatives of the original plaintiff and posted the matter for hearing on 16th June, 1997.
The aforesaid order was admittedly number companyplied with.
We may number briefly numberice the relevant facts as stated in the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order of the High Court.
From the judgment of the High Court it is apparent that the appeal came up for hearing on 24th April, 1997.
It was further admitted that as the order dated 6th February, 1998 was number companyplied with, the default order came into force and the appeal stood dismissed.
It appears that thereafter CMPSR No.
The predecessor of the appellants, i.e., Shri Lanka Venkateswarlu, hereinafter referred to as original plaintiff , brought a suit O.S. No.
In this affidavit, the explanation given is that the predecessors of the officer, who affirmed the affidavit dated 11th July, 2000 came to know about the dismissal of the appeal during the companyrse of investigation in original O.S. No.
49656 of 2000 was moved by respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
6 of 2000 which had been filed by the widow and the children of the deceased original plaintiff, i.e., sole respondent in the appeal.
1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession.
The memo was filed after giving numberice to the advocate for respondent Nos.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. These appeals are directed against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CMP Nos.
In the presence of G. P. for Excise for the Appellant and of Mr. M.S.R. Subramanyam, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
These applications were subsequently numbered as numbered in the heading of the impugned judgment.
