BATBALA VENKATAPSRAYYA Vs. GANUGUNTLA ADILAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Court below in the following circumstances; O.S. No. 53 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet for partition and separate possession of his 3/16th share in the plaint schedule property was filed by one G.Kasiviswanadham, the 9th respondent in C.R.P. No. 257 of 1969. The 4th defendant in the suit died on 19th September, 1966. On 25th September, 1967, I.A. Nos. 1541, 1543 and 1544 of 1967 to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 4th defendant on record, to condone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the abatement and to set aside the abatement of the suit respectively were filed by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the proposed legal representatives of the deceased 4th defendant themselves filed I.A. No. 2267 of 1967 on 22nd December, 1967 to implead them as supplemental defendants as they are necessary and proper parties within the I meaning of Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower Court allowed the application of the legal representatives against which C.R.P. No. 257 of 1969 has been filed by the other defendants in the suit. The other three applications filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed against which C.R.P. Nos. 955 to 957 of 1969 have been filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the contesting defendants, Sri Vidyasagar contends that the order of the Court below in allowing the application of the proposed legal representatives is illegal and is vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The respondent's learned Counsel, Sri Mallikharjuna Rao contended contra.

(3.) The question for decision is whether the order of the lower Court in allowing the application of the proposed legal representatives filed beyond 90 days from the date of the death of the 4th defendant is illegal or vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.