@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe respondent filed O.S. No. 778 of 1992, in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
against the deceased-1st petitioner, by name E. Narasimha Reddy, for recovery of money. It was alleged that E. Narasimha Reddy offered to sell
his tractor and trailer to the respondent, for a sum of Rs. 80,780/-and the respondent issued a cheque, for that amount. It is also alleged that E.
Narasimha Reddy received the cheque and encashed the same, but did not deliver the tractor and trailer. A written statement was filed by E.
Narasimha Reddy, denying the transaction, but admitting the receipt of the cheque and encashment thereof. During the pendency of the suit, he
died. Petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record, as legal representatives.
2. With the leave of the trial Court, petitioners 2 to 4 filed a separate written statement. They disputed even the receipt of cheque by E. Narasimha
Reddy, as well as its encashment. Several new grounds, such as, that of limitation, the one about the registration of the respondent firm, territorial
jurisdiction of the Court, etc, were raised. The respondent filed I.A. No. 1012 of 2005, under Rule 16 of Order VI, read with Rule 4 of Order 22
CPC, to strike off the defence of petitioners 2 to 4, insofar as it is at variance with the one, taken by the deceased-1st petitioner. The application
was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order dated 17.3.2006. The trial Court allowed the I.A.
3. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that several grounds urged by his clients are pure questions of law,
which are capable of being agitated at any stage of the suit. He contends that if petitioners 2 to 4 were totally bound by the written statement filed
by the deceased-1st petitioner, the very permission accorded to them, for filing a written statement, would become nugatory. Learned Counsel
submits that the trial Court had taken the hyper-technical view of the matter, and the order under revision cannot be sustained.
4. Smt. Manjiri Ganu, learned Counsel for the sole respondent, on the other hand, submits that the legal representatives of a party to a suit, cannot
take any stand, different from the one taken by the original party, and that the trial Court had decided the matter, according to the settled principles
of law.
5. The suit was filed for the relief of recovery of certain amount, on the basis of issuance of a cheque and encashment thereof, by the sole
defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died and his legal representatives are brought on record. The suit claim arose, out of
pure contractual obligation, and no rights accrue to the parties, by operation of law. Therefore, much would depend upon the respective stands
taken by the parties, as regards the existence of contract and the rights arising out of it. Admissions or denials by the concerned parties, would
have a direct bearing upon the nature of relief, that may be granted.
Had it been a case, where the sole defendant did not file a written statement, and the occasion to offer defence arose, only after the legal
representatives came on record, there would not have been any restriction, on the nature of defence, which the legal representatives i.e. petitioners
2 to 4, may choose to take. Where, however, the defence was delivered by the original defendant, and it related to contractual obligation, the
scope of defence, that may be offered by the legal representatives, stands substantially restricted. The legal representatives cannot take any stand,
which is at variance with the one, taken by the original party.
6. On his part, the deceased-1st petitioner, who was the sole defendant, admitted the receipt of cheque from the respondent, as well as the
encashment, thereof. He has only denied the allegation as to the offer to sell his tractor and trailer. Further, he did not raise any objection, as to the
maintainability of the suit, be it in the context of registration of the respondent firm, territorial jurisdiction, or limitation. Petitioners 2 to 4, however,
raised all these objections, apart from denying even the receipt of the cheque as well as the encashment, thereof. Once the original defendant had
made his stand known to the Court, the legal representatives cannot be permitted to deviate from it. The trial Court had compared the written
statement filed by deceased-1st petitioner, on the one hand, and the one filed by petitioners 2 to 3, on the other hand. It found on several aspects
that the defence taken by petitioners 2 and 3 is totally at variance, and found that there is substantial variation in between them. Therefore, it had
struck off the defence, on the points mentioned in the order. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
The CRP is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.