Legal representatives of a deceased defendant may be added as parties to the suit under Section 153 C. P. C. if the suit against them is not barred by limitation.

( 1 ) THIS is an application to revise the order of the 4th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowing LA. No. 58 of 1953 in O. S. No. 120 of 1958 and directing the addition of defendants 3 to 7 as parties to the suit The suit was originally instituted against defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant is the father and the 2nd de-fondant is the son. The liability was incurred by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was the surety. It transpires that before the institution of the suit, the 1st defendant died. So, an application was filed by the respondents to bring on record defendants 2 to 7 as the legal representatives of the 1st defendant. Subsequently, another application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. to implead defendants 3 to 7 as parties to the suit. Following the decision of the Madras High Court in K. Ismail v. Pavu Amma, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 644, the learned Judge impleaded defendants 3 to 7 as parties to the suit, the 2nd defendant, one of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant, having already been made a party to the suit. As against the order of the 4th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed to this Court.

( 2 ) SRI V. S. Ashoka, the learned Advocate for the petitioners strenuously contended that, the decision of the Madras High Court in (S) AIR 1955 Mad 644 is not correct and that, the suit having been instituted against a dead person, his legal representatives, defendants 3 to 7, ought net to have been impleaded as defendants in the suit either under Section 153 or Order I, Rule 10 C. P. C. The interesting question that arises for decision is whether cither under the terms of Section 153 C. P. C. or under Order 1, Rule 10 C. P. C. the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant may be added as parties to the suit.

( 3 ) IT is clear law that a suit cannot be instituted under the provisions, of the Civil Procedure Code against a dead person. Such a suit or memorandum of appeal filed against a dead person is a nullity. As early as 1869, it has been held by Sir Barnes Peacock and Mr. Justice Mitter in Mohun Chunder Koondo v. Azeem Gazee Chowkeedar, 12 Suth WR 45 that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit instituted against a dead person. When a similar question arose for consideration, in Veerappa Chetty v. T. Ponnan, ILR 31 Mad 86, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that there was nothing in the Civil Procedure Code of 18s2 to authorise the institution of a suit against the deceased person and that the Courts had no jurisdiction to allow the plaint in such a case to be amended by substituting the names of the representatives of the deceased even when the suit was instituted bona fide and in ignorance of the death of the defendant. In the particular case, there was only a single defendant. The observation in the course of the judgment that on the death of the defendant the action had abated appears, in my opinion, to be erroneous. No question of abatement arises when the suit had been instituted against a defendant who was dead prior to the institution of the suit. The question of abatement falls to be considered only if the defendant dies after the institution of the suit. The law of limitation prescribes a period for bringing on record the legal representatives of the defendant who died subsequent to the institution of the suit. The decision referred to supra was followed by a subsequent bench of the Madras High Court in Rasa Goundan v. Pichamuthu Pillai AIR 1918 Mad 794 (1 ). The correctness of the decision in ILR 51 Mad 86 was challenged before the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Gopalakrishnayya v. Lakshmanarao, ILR 49 Mad 18 : 49 Mad LJ 590: (AIR 1925 Mad 1210) (FB ). One of the decisions referred to by Sri P. Bapiraju appearing on behalf of the respondent was the decision in ILR 31 Mad 86. It appears from the report of arguments in 49 Mad LJ 590 at p. 592 that the decision was