V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is filed to bring the legal representatives of the sole deceased respondent on record. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was stated that the sole respondent died on 7-4-1996 leaving behind the respondents named in the affidavit. It was further stated that the above information as to the demise of the sole respondent was brought to the notice of the petitioner only recently. However, learned Counsel for the respondent, who was engaged pending the appeal prior to the demise of the respondent, submitted that the information regarding the demise of the sole respondent was already conveyed to the erstwhile Counsel of the petitioner by a letter sent by registered post to him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has now fairly conceded before me that a letter was addressed to the Counsel for the petitioner on 10-5-1996 informing the demise of the sole respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 75/84 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kurnool, which was decreed on 14-2-1990. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the deceased respondent filedas. No. 42/90 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, and it was allowed by judgment dated 9-11-1992. As against that judgment the petitioner filed the present second appeal. Pending the second appeal, the sole defendant/respondent died on 7-4-1996, as stated supra Under Order 22 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) read with Article 120 of the Limitation Act an application has to be filed within 90 days from the date of death of the deceased respondent. This petition, however, was filed only on 19-10-1997. Thus, there is a delay of over 400 days. Hence, the appeal abates. It is curious to notice that the petitioner has neither filed an application to set aside the abetment, nor an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, seriously contends, relying upon Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code, that the appeal did not abate. According to him it was incumbent upon the Counsel of the deceased respondent, who had come to know of the death of the party, to inform the Court about the death of the party and the Court, thereupon, should give notice of such death to the petitioner. Since the Counsel for the respondent has not informed the Court, having come to know about the death of the respondent, and the petitioner has come to know about the death only recently, the time would not run for the purpose of limitation from either the date of death or from the date of the knowledge of the death.

( 4 ) I am not able to agree. Learned Counsel has not correctly understood the scope of Rule 10a of Order 22 of the Code. It should be noticed that Rule 10a of Order 22 of the Code has been inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, only forthe purpose of reducing the complications that may arise by reason of the ignorance of the death of one party at a later stage of the suit or appeal. Rule 10a therefore enjoins the Counsel to inform the Court, if he comes to know of the death of the party, in case the other party was ignorant of the death of the other party, to facilitatehim to make an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased, on record, (hereby the delay in the progress of the proceedings would be effectively avoided. The duty of the Counsel arises only if the other party is ignorant of the death of the deceased. However, if he has got knowledge of the death of the deceased, an application has to be filed by him, within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act to file such an application, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record. Such period shall commence from the date of the death of the party. Rule 10a cannot, however, withhold the running of the period of limitation from the date of the death of the party nor will it enable the other party, who has got

Click Here to Read the rest of this document