SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(AP) 16

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Rasetty Rajyalakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
Rajamuru Kannaiah – Respondent


CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises two questions of interest and perhaps of some importance: (1) Whether a suit instituted against a sole defendant who had dies prior to the institution of the suit itself is non est, and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant in an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 and Section 151 C. P. C. ; (2) what is the true scope and object of Section 21 of the limitation Act.

( 2 ) THE facts are not complicated and lie in the narrow compass. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 58 of 1973, before the Principal, District Munsiff, Tirupathi, on 5-2-1973, on the foot of a promissory note against the defendant Rasetti Radhakrishnaiah. He had died on 29-1-1973. The last date of limitation for filing the suit was 5-2-1973. The suit was posted for the appearance of the defendant to 27-6-1973. The suit summons sent for service of the defendant were returned unserved with the endorsement that the defendant was dead. Then the plaintiff filed a petition I. A. No. 637 of 1973, out of which this Civil Revision Petition, arises on 28-6-1973, to add the legal representat





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top