KATTAPPANA PANCHAYAT Vs. P C MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from O.S.199/94 of the Sub Court, Kattappana filed by the appellant in A.S.435/98. In the other appeal, A.S.98/98 by the defendant, the captioned interlocutory applications are filed seeking condonation of delay of 3387 days in applying to set aside the abatement of that appeal following the death of the sole respondent, plaintiff. The other interlocutory applications are for setting aside such abatement and also for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in that appeal.

(2.) THE aforesaid interlocutory applications are objected to by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on the ground that in the plaintiff's appeal A.S.435/98, his legal representatives were brought on record in time and memo was filed in A.S.98/98 at that point of time, however that, there is no explanation for the enormous delay in submitting the interlocutory applications to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives on record. By such memo, the appellant in A.S.98/98 stood notified of the death of the respondent in that appeal, it is argued. Though it may be true that the copy of the memo was served on the counsel for the appellant in AS.98/98, the defendant, a grama panchayat, did not promptly apply for impleadment or to have the abatement set aside. However, both the appeals, A.S.Nos.98/98 and 435/98 arise from one suit and those two appeals are against a decree and its judgment. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant in A.S.98/98 that by virtue of the impleadment of the legal representatives of the plaintiff in A.S.435/98, AS.98/98 cannot be treated as abated and the estate of the plaintiff should be taken as duly represented. In support, the decision of the Apex Court in N.Jayaram Reddi v. Revenue Divisional Officer [AIR 1979 SC 1393] is profitably cited. We are of the view that such precedent supports the plea for impleadment of the legal representatives in A.S.98/98. Accordingly, C.M.Appln.443/12, IA Nos.1346/12 & 1347/12 are allowed.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid facts, it cannot be ignored that the defendant panchayat had not terminated the work on any ground attributed to the plaintiff. It is in that premise that the court below had considered each of the claims on the basis of the evidence tendered and concluded that an amount of Rs.1,77,000/- is due. The court below also granted interest on the due amount at 12% per annum from the date of the decree till recovery. It is also recorded that the plaintiff as PW1 had deposed before the court below that he would be satisfied with the decree of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest and costs.