Delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives requires justifiable reasons, and knowledge of a party's death does not negate the need for timely action.

Order

(1) This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2025, in IA.No.3/2024, in OS.No.89/2020, dismissing the petitioner’s application to bring on record, the legal representatives of the deceased 2^nd respondent.

(2) The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.89/2020, is the petitioner before this Court and the defendants are the respondents.

(3) The revision petitioner filed the suit in OS.No.89/2020, against the respondents herein, for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Pending suit, the 2^nd defendant, Ramalinga Thevar, died on 14.08.2021 and a Memo dated 21.12.2022, to that effect was also filed by the respondent. The revision petitioner thereafter filed IA.No.3/2024, to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 2^nd defendant, on 29.02.2024. The Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that even though the petitioner had knowledge of the death of the 2^nd defendant through the Memo dated 21.12.2022, without assigning any justifiable reasons for the long delay of two years, the petitioner filed the above IA for bringing the legal representatives on record. The Trial Court further found that the petition to implead the LRs, was filed without a condone delay application. Therefore, on the aforesaid two grounds, the Trial Court dismissed IA.No.3/2024. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed the above Civil Revision Petition for the aforesaid relief.

(4) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

(5) Admittedly, the petitioner acquired knowledge of the death of the 2^nd defendant on 14.08.2021, through the Memo of the respondent dated 21.12.2022, itself. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, the petitioner has not given any justifiable reasons for the long delay of two years, in filing the petition to bring on record, the LRs of the deceased 2^nd defendant, despite knowledge of the 2^nd defendant’s death as early as on 21.12.2022, through the Memo of the respondent. This Court therefore, finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Trial Court.

(6) However, it is seen that the petitioner on an earlier occasion filed an identical application in IA.No.4/2024, in the same suit and the same was dismissed on 07.02.2024. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal order in IA.No.4/2024, in CRP.No.566/2026. This Court, while dismissing CRP.No.566/2026, by order dated 27.02.2026, clarified that the dismissal of the suit against the 2^nd defendant, would not automatically result in the abatement of the entire suit. Therefore, while disposing the present Civil Revision Petition, this Court clarifies that the dismissal of the suit against the 2^nd defendant will not preclude the petitioner from proceeding with the suit as against the 1^st defendant, the

1^st respondent herein.

(7) With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.