P. L. NARASIMHA SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) C. M. P. No. 2268 of 1991 was one filed under Section 5 of Limitation act to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent.

( 2 ) C. M. P. 2267 of 1991 was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole resdondent and C. M. P. No. 12529 of 1990 was filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole respondent in the revision.

( 3 ) IN the afidavit filed in support of the applications, it is stated that the advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the revision petition informed their Advocate by his letter dt. 22-3-1990 that the sole respondent in the revision petition died on 16-1-1990. Immediately thereafter, they caused enquiries and came to know that the said statement is correct and also on enquiries they came to know that the sole respondent died issueless and his brother s sons, viz. , the persons sought to be impleaded are the legal representatives to be brought on record. In view of the above, they prayed that the respondents may be brought on record as the legal representatives of the sole respondent. The application was filed on 19-7-1990.

( 4 ) COUNTER was filed on behalf of the parties who are sought to be impleaded as legal representatives. It was mentioned in the counter that the sole respondent died on 16-1-1990 and the said fact was informed to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by a letter dt. 22-3-1990. But the application to bring the legal representatives was filed only in the month of July. 1990 and therefore, there was delay in filing the application and no reasons are given for filing the application after the stipulated time. Therefore, it is stated that the application should be dismissed.

( 5 ) WHEN the application C. M. P. No. 12529 of 1990 was filed, the office seems to have taken an objection that an application to condone the delay will have to be filed. Therefore, the other two applications were filed, one for condoning the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement and the other for setting aside the abatement.

( 6 ) SRI M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the legal representatives who are sought to be inpleaded contended that the counsel for the petitioners was informed on 22-3-90 by a letter of even date about the death of the sole respondent. But the application was filed to bring the legal representatives of the sole respondent on record only on 19-7-1990. There is no explanation for the delay. No reasons are given and no sufficient cause is established for filing the application after an inordinate delay and therefore, the applications should be dismissed.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the letter dated 22-3-1990 was served on him, the party was informed of the same only in May, 1990. Immediately, the petitioners enquired about the said fact and after making enquiries, they have given necessary instructions and the application was filed on 19-7-1990. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for not filing the application within the time.

( 8 ) THERE are two aspects in this case. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, nowhere it was stated that the party was informed immediately by the counsel for the petitioners on receipt of the letter dated 22-3-1990 about the date of death of the sole respondent. In view of the statement made before me by the counsel for the petitioners that he informed the party only in the month of May, 1990 and the applications have been filed on 19-7-90 after making necessary enquiries with regard to the legal representatives, in my opinion, the delay was sufficiently explained. In this connection one must bear in mind the introduction of rule 10-A of Order 22 CPC. This provision was newly inserted by Code of civil procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. It imposes an obligation on the advocate of a party to communica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document