P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a reference made by our learned brother Justice Krishna Saran Shrivastav, who doubled the correctness of/ the decision reported in /i Srinivasa Rao v. 7. Subba Rao, 1972 (1) An. WR (SN) 13, which is a case of father absconding being a defendant in a suit filed on the foot of a promissory note, and sons claiming to be impleaded as defendants, has been accepted.

( 2 ) THE suit O. S. No. 22 of 1995 is filed on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by one Mr. Raghava Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of Petitioners 2 to 4. Alter summons were received by Raghava Rao, he engaged aqr Advocate, who sought time for filing written statement on 12-9-1995. In fact adjournments were granted on payment of costs, and the suit was finally posted to 17-10-1995, on which dale, the defendant was called absent and set ex parte. An ex parte decree was passed on 27-10-1995. The respondent - decree holder filed E. P. No. 118 of 1995. Then the petitioners filed applications to implead themselves as parties to the execution petition on the ground that Raghava Rao was absconding from 6-9-1995 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document