M K VENKATACHALAPATHY SETTY Vs. SANNARASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been placed before this Division Bench for disposal, on an order of reference made by Malimath, Ag. C. J. (as he then was), being of opinion, that an important question of law arises.

(2.) The petitioners in all these petitions are the same persons, while the respondents are different persons. These petitioners and three others who are their brothers, filed HRC No. 1551 of 1977 New No. 1183 of 1980, HRC No. 1545 of 1977 New No. 1110 of 1980, HRC No. 1515 of 1977 New No. 1096 of 1980, HRC No. 1541 of 1977 New No, 1107 of 1980, H. R. C. No. 1517 of 1977 New No. 1098 of 1980, H. R. C. No. 1509 of 1977 New No. 1092 of 1980, H.R.C. No. 1499 of 1977 New No. 1089 of 1980, HRC No. 1547 of 1977 New No. 1111 of 1980. HRC No. 1513 of 1977 New No. 1094 of 1980. HRC No. 1543 of 1977 New No. 1108 of 1980, H. R. C. 1497 of 1977 New No. 1109 of 1980 and H. R. C. No. 1505 of 1977 New No. 1091 of 1980, against the respondents in these civil revision petitions respectively. The said three persons were the brothers of the petitioners. They were petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in all the said H. R. C. applications.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that during the pendency of the applications in the Court of the XV Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore, three landlords namely, petitioners 2, 3 and 5 in the trial court expired. Three applications - one for bringing the legal representatives of the three deceased landlords on record, under O.22 R.3 C.P.C. another application under O.22, R.9, C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement, consequent to the death of the three landlords, and another application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, requesting the Court to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement order -came to be filed in each of these H. R. C. cases. Those I. As. are given different numbers in different cases. Clarification of that is not, in our opinion, necessary for purpose of this order. The trial court passed its order on 18-2-1982. It rejected the applications by simply following the decision of this Court in Allamma v. Balagel Basappa (CRP No. 1982 of 1968, disposed of on 15-7-1969). It has to be stated here that the contents of all the orders in all these H. R. C. cases are almost same. The trial court has simply referred to the decision in that case and proceeded to dismiss the said cases. No other reasoning is found in the impugned orders.