B. Prakash Rao, J.

This case is coming up before us on a reference made by learned Single Judge (Justice Bilal Nazki) for consideration of the question as to whether the law laid down by this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Sri Ramachandra B & R Rice Mill (AIR 1985 A.P. 23) and also Vijayalakshmi Jayaram v. M.R. Parasuram (1995 (2) ALT 32) that under Order XXII Rule 10A of CPC there is a duty cast on the advocate appearing for a deceased defendant to give the list of legal representatives of the deceased is correct.

Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri K.S. Gopalakrishnan, on behalf of the respondents.

The brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid question and as mentioned in the reference are to the following effect:

There has been a delay of 345 days in representing an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the 6th defendant in a suit. The said application has been dismissed and therefore this revision has been filed.

The 6th defendant admittedly had died on 4th March 1998. A memo was filed by his counsel on 19.8.1998 informing the Court about the death of the 6th defendant. An application by the plaintiff was filed on 12.7.1999 for bringing on record the deceased defendant’s legal heirs. Admittedly, there is a long delay. The only question raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that in terms of Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure the duty is cast on the counsel appearing for a defendant, who dies during the pendency of the suit, not only to inform about the date of death of his client but also to inform the Court the particulars of the legal representatives of his deceased client; since the counsel failed to furnish that information and the plaintiff did not know about the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, it took them a long time to make enquiries and the enquiries were completed only two days before filing the application. He relies on two judgments of this Court in Food Corporation of India (1 supra) and

Vijayalakshmi Jayaram (2 supra).

From the above backdrop, the learned Single Judge expressing doubts about the correctness of the interpretation given to Rule 10A of Order XXII of CPC referred the matter for an authoritative pronouncement.

Before taking up the question, it would be apt to refer to the said Rule 10A of Order XXII of CPC, which reads as follows:

Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party.- Whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.

The above Rule was added by way of an amendment under Act 104 of 1976 and it has come into force with effect from 01.02.1977. The objects and reasons as mentioned in the Bill in support of the said amendment are that the above new rule is being inserted to impose an obligation on the pleaders of the parties to communicate to the Court the death of the party represented by him. From the above and also on a bare reading of the above rule, it can safely be said that apparently with a view to avoid any delays in obtaining knowledge of the death of any party by the other side, such an obligation is created on the pleader by giving an extended authority, though establishedly any such authority as a pleader would come to an end on the death of the party whom he represents. Therefore, as and when a pleader comes to know of the death of the party whom he represents, he has to intimate to the other side in appropriate manner about the death so that the other side would take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. This avoids any legal representatives of the parties, at later stage, to come out with any version to the effec