KUTTAPPA Vs. KATRIKOLLI SOMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the persons who are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased defendant in O.S. No. 162 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Virajpet. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff granting the prayer of the plaintiff to bring them on record as legal representatives, they have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) To understand the circumstances under which the present revision petition has been filed, only a few facts need be stated. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 162 of 1975 against one Kambiranda A. Muthanna for declaration of his title to Sy. No. 113/1 and delivery of possession of 2 acres 6 guntas of land in the said survey number. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. for appointment of Commissioner and that having been allowed, the defendant challenged the same before this Court in C.R.P. No. 620 of 1979. The defendant (revision petitioner in the said case) died on 30-11-1983 and the present revision petitioners filed on application in that revision petition to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner and that application having been filed within time, they were brought on record and later on that revision petition came to be disposed of in February, 1984. No legal representative's application was filed before the learned Munsiff in whose Court the suit was pending within the period prescribed by law and an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. on 20-4-1985 to permit them to amend the cause title by bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant who had come on record before this Court in the revision petition referred to already. The plaintiff also filed 3 other applications, one to condone the delay in filing the application, another for setting aside the abatement and yet another application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. All these applications were considered by the learned Munsiff and he held that because the legal representatives of the deceased defendant had been brought on record in the revision petition before this Court, that enured to the benefit of the plaintiff and allowed the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. and in that view of the matter, he ordered, that the other applications should be filed. It is being aggrieved by this order that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant have preferred this revision petition.

(3.) That the present revision petitioners are in fact the legal represent atives of the deceased and they were in fact brought on record at their own instance, in the previous revision petition referred to already is admitted; that no separate application was filed within the prescribed lime by the plaintiff before the learned Munsiff under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant is also admitted on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the only aspect that has to be examined is whether the fact that the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were brought on record in revision petition referred to already enures to the benefit of the plaintiff in the original suit and whether therefore the suit did not abate?