N. MOHAN SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. (SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O. LATE N. MOHAN AND SRI. N. MALLIKARJUNA W/O. LATE N. MOHAN) AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. N. MANJULA RANI W/O. RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing I.A. Nos. 5 to 7 filed by the respondent herein - plaintiff before the Court below. Respondent has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties against her sister and brothers. The 1st defendant, the eldest brother of the plaintiff died on 23.11.2006. The death was reported on 08.12.2006. A memo was filed on 14.09.2007 seeking dismissal of the suit as the legal representatives of deceased - defendant No. 1 were not brought on record. The Court recorded in the order sheet noting that the suit stood abated as against deceased - defendant No. 1 on 06.12.2007. Applications for recalling the order and setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives on record were filed. The reasons assigned for the delay in filing the application was that the plaintiff -respondent herein was away on account of the pregnancy of her daughter as she was required to attend to her. These applications were resisted. The Court below has allowed these applications and ordered the legal representatives to be brought on record. However, the application filed for recalling the order has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order permitting the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of deceased - defendant No. 1 on record and also condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, these writ petitions are filed.

(2.) THE main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that despite a memo filed on 14.09.2007 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not take steps to bring the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 on record, no action was taken for nearly one year two months even after intimation of the same on 08.12.2006.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that having regard to the fact that this case is of the year 2004, a direction to dispose of the suit early may be granted. I find that the said request is just and reasonable. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.