MAKKIAMMAL GHORI Ï¿½UTHAMAPALAYAM Vs. THONDI ALIAS MOHIDCCN IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam in I.A.No.496 of 1988, which was an application under O.22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit. The relevant facts are shortly as follows: The suit was filed by the petitioner herein for a declaration that the suit property was a wakf belonging to the plaintiff Ghori and for consequential decree directing defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6 to hand over vacant possession of the suit property after removing the superstructures without any let or hindrance and directing the fifth defendant to remove the gate put up by him in the "B" Schedule property and directing the 6th defendant to remove the structure put up in the "C" Schedule property.

(2.) ON 15.6.1987, the first defendant died. The plaintiff made an endorsement on 10.11.1987 that he was not filing L.R. petition for the first defendant. It is to be noted that even on that date, the time to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record had expired and the plaintiff, if he wanted to file a petition to bring the legal representatives on record, ought to have filed an application for setting aside the abatement.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed an application actually on 23.6.1988 to bring the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant on record. He did not file any application either to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first defendant or to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was merely stated that the first defendant died on 15.6.1987 and at the time of the trial, the Court passed an order on 28.4.1988 directing the impleading of the legal representatives and as per the said order, the application was being filed. THE application was opposed by the other defendants in the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation and the plaintiff having deliberately omitted to bring the legal representatives on record in time, was not entitled to implead the legal representatives in the suit after the suit had abated.