MOHAMMED SHUKUR Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are filed by the tenant questioning the order of the munsiff allowing an application filed by the respondents under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code to amend the cause title in the order by bringing the respondents as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in h. r. c. 19 of 1985. That order of the munsiff which was challenged by the petitioner before the district judge has been confirmed by him.

(2.) THE undisputed facts giving rise to the application undersection 151 filed by the respondents are briefly as hereunder. The deceased ramesh kuberappa pastay had filed a petition in h. r. c. 19 of 1985 seeking eviction of the petitioner on various grounds. The evidence of both parties was completed by December 1988 and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The original petitioner died on 27-5-1989. The respondents filed an application under order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code to bring them on record on 9-6-1989 after serving a copy on the petitioner's advocate. That application was filed within time. No specific order allowing that application was passed by the court. The petitioner did not file any objection to that application. Subsequently the respondents Advocate filed an application for permission to produce certain documents under order 13, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. That application was allowed by the court. The arguments were heard on 22-12-1990 and an order was also passed on 4-1-1991.

(3.) THE respondents sought for formal order allowing the legal representatives application and to bring them on record. This application was filed under sections 151 and 152, civil procedure code. The petitioner opposed that application contending that as the legal representatives were not brought on record in the original petition the petition automatically abated and that the court could not after the disposal of the case allow that legal representatives application. It was also contended that even if the l. r. application was to be allowed the final order already passed will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be again heard afresh. The munsiff has allowed the application filed by the respondents holding that the failure to pass a formal order allowing the l. r. application was accidental and that the mistake could be rectified by bringing the l. rs. On record without the need of hearing the matter again. The learned district judge has concurred with the order of the munsiff.