( 1 ) THESE three revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 6821 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. All of them arise in. the context of bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a chit fund company and the first defendant was one of its subscribers to a chit of the value of rs. 1,00,000/- and duration of 50 months. In the auction conducted on 15-2-1998, the first defendant emerged as the prized subscriber, and accordingly, he was paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/ -. By that time, he paid an amount of Rs. 34,000/- towards monthly instalments and for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 66,000/-, he executed a promissory note. Respondents 2 to 5 are said to be the sureties.

( 3 ) ALLEGING that the first defendant committed default from September 1998 onwards, the petitioner filed the suit on 26-11-1999. It is stated that the brother of the first defendant, by name Jayaram, who is shown as respondent No. 6, in these revisions appeared before the Court on 8-6-2000 and stated that the first defendant died on 27-7-1998.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed I. A. Nos. 700 and 701 of 2000 for setting aside the abatement on account of the death of the first defendant and to bring the sixth respondent herein on record as his legal representative. The applications were rejected on the ground that they were not accompanied by a petition to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed CRP Nos. 5011 and 5012 of 2002. The C. R. Ps. were disposed of by this Court directing the Trial Court to consider the I. A. afresh, leaving it open to the plaintiff to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was in this context that the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 564 of 2003 under Section 5 of the limitation Act to condone the delay in presenting I. A. Nos. 700 and 701 of 2000.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, it was pleaded that it came to know about the death of the first defendant only when he revealed the same in the Court on 8-6-2000, and soon thereafter steps were taken to bring the legal representatives on record, and that there was a delay of 737 days in presenting the application to set aside the abatement.

( 6 ) THE proposed legal representative, the sixth respondent resisted the applications. He stated that the plaintiff was very much aware of the death of the first defendant, much before filing the suit, and in that view of the matter, the very institution of the suit by impleading the first defendant is irregular and impermissible. Through a common order dated 13-10-2003, the Trial court took the view that the delay was not properly explained, and thereby dismissed all the three applications.

( 7 ) SRI A. K. Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that his client took steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record soon after his brother appeared and stated about the death. According to him, the time from the date of filing the applications I. A. Nos. 700 and 701 of 2000 till the date of filing I. A. No. 564 of 2004, requires to be condoned as the matter was being pursued, may be in a defective manner. It is also his contention that the view taken by the Trial Court that the delay was not properly explained, cannot be sustained.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the proposed legal representative, on the other hand, submits that the very filing of the suit against a dead person is impermissible. He contends that once the petitioner was aware of the death of the first defendant, much before filing the suit, the question of filing applications to bring his legal representatives on record at a later stage, does not arise.

( 9 ) THOUGH the controversy arises mainly out of an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the matter has further ramifications. If it is an ordin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document