SVED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises in these civil revision petitions is; whether a party to a suit or proceeding, who fails to bring on record the legal representatives under O. 22, R. 4, or whose application under the said provision has been dismissed, can have recourse to the provisions of O. 1, R. 10 C. P. C. to implead the legal representative of the deceased party.

( 2 ) IN C. R. P. No. 3389 of 1987 the above-said question arose for consideration of a learned single Judge of this Court who felt that in view of the importance of the question the case has to be decided by a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question.

( 3 ) AS C. R. P. No. 3390 of 1987 arises out of the same suit and raises the same question, it was directed to be posted along with C. R. P. 3389 of 1987.

( 4 ) THE respondent in the first mentioned C. r:p. filed O. S. 48 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli for partition of the suit properties. Defendants 1 to 3 therein are the co-sharers. Defendants 14 to 13 are the tenants of various extents of agricultural lands which are subject matter of the suit. The 14th defendant is an alienee of the suit lands which were in possession of the 4th defendant as tenant. During the pendency of the suit the 4th defendant died on 19-12-1983. No steps were taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the 4th defendant under Order 22, Rule 4, C. P. C. However an application under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. (I. A. No. 553 of 1934) was filed to implead respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants 15 and 16 in the suit. That application was opposed by the 14th defendant. While the I. A. was pending, the 14th defendant also died on 9-9-1985 leaving the revision-petitioners as legal representatives being his legatees. On 29-11-1985 a memo was filed in the trial Court intimating the death of the 14th defendant after giving notice of the same to the counsel for the plaintiff. No steps were however taken to bring on record the legal representative of the 14th defendant. On 3-7-1986 the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 254 of 1986 under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. to implead the revision-petitioner as 17th defendant. Both these petitions were allowed by a common order dated 12-10-1987.

( 5 ) ONE of the proposed parties (who was impleaded as 17th defendant in the suit) filed C. R. P. 3389 of 1987 against the order in I. A. No. 254 of 1986 and C. R. P, 3390 of 1987 against the order in I. A. No. 559 of 1984.

( 6 ) C. R. P. No. 2325 of 1987:-- The revision-petitioner filed O. S. No. 291 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Addanki for a permanent injunction against one K. Venkateswarlu (who died during the pendency of the suit) and respondents 2 to 4. In the said suit he filed I. A. No. 1254 of 1987. under O. 1, Rule 10 read with Sec. 151, C. P. C. for impleading the proposed 4th respondent who is the son of the deceased 1st defendant. The proposed defendant contested the application. By order dated 24-8-1987 the learned Additional District Munsif, Addanki dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order in the I. A. the plaintiff-petitioner filed this revision petition. As the same question is raised in this revision petition, it was directed to be posted along with C. R. Ps. Nos. 3389 and 3390 of 1987.

( 7 ) C. R. P. No. 2260 of 1988:-- The revision-petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. N o. 141 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Penukonda. He filed the suit, for declaration of title to and for possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit defendants 1 and 4 died, but their, legal representatives were not brought on record in time. The petitioner filed two interlocutory applications (I. A. No. 407 of 1987 to condone the delay in bringing the L. Rs. on record, and I. A. No. 408 of 1987 to bring the L. Rs. on record ). On 23-11-1987 the two I. As. were dismissed and that order has become final. The petitioner then filed I. A. No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document