SRINIVASACHARI, MUNIKANNIAH, JJ.

( 1 ) THE persons concerned in S. R. No. 12795 of 1954 seek to filean appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O. S. No. 29 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, after obtaining the permission of this Court therefor. They also filed C. M. P. No. 1393 of 1955 to excuse the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. Both these petitions are before us.

( 2 ) A certain extent of land was carved out of the village of Telaprolu and granted in inam by the zamindar of Nuzvid in Fasli 1157. The area so carved out is known as Venkatapuram Khandriga. A title deed was granted to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs by the Inam Commission after fixing the quit rent at rs. 2-8-0 per year. The grantees viz,. , the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs claimed venkatapuram Khandriga as an inam while the tenants of that village contested that position. The Settlement Officer held that Venkatapuram is not an estate while the special Officer reversed that finding. Consequently, the rent payable by the tenants in Venkatapuram were reduced by order No. 2034, dated 20th July, 1949.

( 3 ) THEREUPON the landlholder filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the same was dismissed as it was found that the appropriate remedy lay by way of a suit. Thus O. S. No. 29 of 1953 came to be filed by the landholders. The Government alone had been made the defendant to this suit. When the Government took an objection to the non-joinder of the ryots of the village of Venkatapuram, defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded after obtaining necessary permission under Order 1, rule 8, civil Procedure Code. Later on, defendants 6 to 9 got impleaded as it was felt the defendants 2 to 5 were the supporters of the plaintiffs. At the trial, no oral evidence was let in and no documents for the defendants have been marked. The learned subordinate Judge held in favour of the plaintiffs and found that Venkatapuram is not an estate. No appeal was preferred by any of the defendants who sought to represent the tenants. On behalf of the persons who seek to file the appeal with the permission of this Court after getting the delay excused, it is averred that defendants to 9 did not take any interest in the matter and therefore neglected to produce even documentary evidence which, according to them, is numerous and voluminous. They alleged collusion between the plaintiffs and defendants 6 to 9 also. They state they learnt about the apathetic attitude of those defendants and when the tenants questioned these defendants, it was late for filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the petitioners came forward to file the appeal after obtaining leave of the Court, if necessary, and after getting the delay excused.

( 4 ) MR. K. Narasimham for the appellants contended that having regard to the conduct of defendants 2 to 9 and the fact that they sought to represent the tenants but forsake their interest, this is especially a case for grant of leave by the Court to prefer an appeal after excusing the delay and that this Court can exercise such a power. The Government Pleader laid stress that the judgment and decree of the lower court would bind the tenants and operate as resjudicata and that therefore the appellants could be considered as parties to the suit though represented by other named defendants and that therefore the application to excuse the delay is the only thing that comes up for consideration before this Court. On the other hand, Mr. Ramanujachari, who appears for the landholders, urges that the appellants could not be considered as actual parties to the suit as they did not apply to the Court to be made parties as required under sub-rule (2) of rule 8 of Order 1, Civil Procedure Code, and that no leave could be granted to the appellants to file the appeal as they were not parties to the suit. He further contended that no valid grounds are disclosed for excusing the delay in filing the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document