Legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff cannot seek impleadment under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. when their effort to get impleadment under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. failed because of unreasonable and unexplained delay.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of Order dated 09.04.2019 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta in I.A. No. 01 of 2018 in O.S. No. 51 of 2006.

2. These revision petitioners had filed I.A. No. 01 of 2018 before the learned trial Court under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for their impleadment and the petition also contains the consequential amendments that could be brought in the plaint. Learned trial Court by the impugned Order dismissed the said petition and therefore this revision. Respondent Nos. 1 to 26 in this revision are the plaintiffs in the suit. Respondent Nos. 27 to 31 in this revision are the defendants in the suit.

3. 26 plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 51 of 2006. 2nd plaintiff is Sri Jami Kurma Rao. He died on 22.08.2008 and it occurred during the pendency of the suit. His wife also died. He has sons and daughters and they are the revision petitioners herein and they seek their impleadment in the suit as plaintiffs 27 to 33.

4. Earlier to their petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. they had filed in I.A. No. 401 of 2012 and I.A. No. 402 of 2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. I.A. 401 of 2012 was an application to condone the delay of 3468 days in presenting an application for impleadement of legal representatives. I.A. No. 402 of 2012 was an application for impleadment of legal representatives. Both the applications were enquired into and they were dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Learned trial Court observed that the delay of 3468 days was not satisfactorily explained and saying so it dismissed I.A. No. 401 of 2012. Since that application was dismissed as a consequence to follow, it dismissed I.A. No. 402 of 2012. Thus the efforts of legal representatives to come on record under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. failed before the learned trial Court.

5. Aggrieved by those orders, the legal representatives preferred C.R.P. Nos. 312 and 342 of 2015. This Court by an order dated 11.12.2018 found that legal representatives in their petitions failed to furnish necessary particulars in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and further the affidavit indicated the delay was at 3468 days. However, the learned counsel appearing for them before this Court submitted that the actual delay was only 1389 days. After considering the ratio laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathapur Nafar Academy and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 this Court concluded that the petitioners have not been acting with care and caution and failed to furnish relevant facts and the facts stated did not offer sufficient cause for delay and approved the trial Court orders and dismissed the petitions. Those orders became final. It is in the back drop of those earlier legal proceedings, the present case proceedings have to be noticed now.

6. These revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 01 of 2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 17.12.2018. In that petition it is stated that they are the sole survivors and legal heirs to the deceased 2nd plaintiff Sri Jami Kurma Rao and they have filed this petition subsequent to the dismissal of their applications under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. It is stated that the deceased 2nd plaintiff was having a wooden bunk in the suit schedule property and that was removed by the Municipal Authorities and that removal took place without prior notice and therefore challenging that removal, the 2nd plaintiff along with other plaintiffs filed the suit. That these legal representatives are interested to prosecute the suit as they step into shoes of their deceased father. Even after dismissal of their application under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. they have got every right to agitate for their rights. They are proper and necessary parties and in their absence the cause prosecuted by their father could not fulfilled. Therefore, their presence in the suit is essential. With these reasons th