MEDIDHI SAMMAIAH Vs. KORE KOMURAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One along with respondents 8 to 10 filed O.S.No. 312 of 1997 against respondents 1 to 7 seeking decree of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession over Ac. 1-30 guntas of land in S.No. 341 of Urs, Warangal. After trial the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby A.S.No. 64 of 1994 was preferred before the court of the I Additional District Judge, Warangal by the said M. Sarmmaiah and respondents 8 to 10. During the pendency of that appeal Sammaiah, died on 25-5-1997. About three years after the death of Sammaiah second revision petitioner, filed I.A.Nos. 82,83 and 86 of 2000, seeking permission of the court to come on record in A.S.No. 64 of 1994 as legal representative of his father Sammaiah, by setting aside the abatement, after condoning the delay of 754 days. The learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, by a common order dated 7-3-2000 dismissed all the applications holding that the delay of 754 days is not properly explained. Questioning the dismissal of the I.A.No.82 of 2000, to condone the delay of 754 days, this revision is filed.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the second revision petitioner was living away from his father he was not aware of his father filing the suit and appeal, and immediately after coming to know that an appeal filed by his father is pending he filed I.A.Nos. 82, 83 and 86 of 2000, and since lack of knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings is a good ground for condoning the delay the court below ought to have condone the delay, as there are no laches on his part.

(3.) The affidavit filed in support of the LA. 82 of 2000 does not disclose as to how and when the 2nd petitioner came to know about the pendency of A.S.No. 64 of 1994. But in the affidavit filed in support of the C.M.P. in this C.R.P. seeking stay of hearing of A.S.No. 64 of 1994, it is alleged that second revision petitioner came to know about the pendency of appeal through the 8th respondent, who is one of the appellants in the appeal. Even assuming that 2nd petitioner was living away from his father (the deceased first appellant) and hence was not aware of his father filing the suit and appeal, that fact, by itself, is not a ground to condone the inordinate delay of nearly two years. Four persons jointly claiming a right in and possession over the suit property, filed the suit seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property. Since four persons are claiming joint possession, and have filed the suit and a common appeal, the factum of death of Sammaiah, the 1st appellant, should be deemed to have known to the respondents 8 to 10. Therefore it was the duty of respondents 8 to 10 who are the co-appellants of the deceased Sammaiah to file an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Sammaiah within time, and if there is delay, it is for respondents 8 to 10 to explain as to why they did not take steps, within time to bring on record the legal representatives of Sammaiah, had. Sammaiah filed a separate appeal, showing his co-plaintiffs as respondents in the appeal, lack of knowledge on the part of 2nd revision petitioner about Sammaiah filing an appeal, may be a good ground for condoning the delay. Since Sammaiah filed the appeal along with respondents 8 to 10 2nd revision petitioners lack of knowledge of pendency of appeal is not and cannot be a ground for condoning the inordinate delay of above 2 years, when the other appellants i.e., respondents 8 to 10 failed to explain the reason for their not taking steps to bring on record the 2nd revision petitioner as a legal representative of the deceased Sammaiah in the appeal. It is a well-know principle of law that a thing, which cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done in an indirect fashion. Respondents 8 to 10, who failed to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of their deceased co-appellant within time, knowing that they have no valid explanation to offer for the long delay of two years, must have got filed the petitions through the 2nd revision petitioner, under the pretext that he has no knowledge about the pendency of the appeal, to get over their laches.