EDUBILLI APPAMMA Vs. IDUBILLI RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Balaga Bangaramma, second respondent herein died during the pendency of appeal in A.S.No.7 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, who filed O.S.No. 143 of 968 for partition of the suit schedule property. The first respondent herein was the second defendant in the said suit along with certain other defendants who are not parties to the present revision petition. Admittedly, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, I.A.No. 1033 of 1975 was filed by the decreeholder for a final decree and the same was also allowed. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first respondent herein carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No. 54 of 1978 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge's Court, Parvathipuram. It is pertinent to mention that subsequently, the appeal came to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bobbili and renumbered as A.S.No.7 of 1990. It appears that the decreeholder died during the pendency of the first appeal. Thereafter, the sixth defendant herein i.e., Smt. Reddi Narayanamma @ China Narayanamma filed I.A.No. 34 of 1983, wherein she claimed that she is the legatee of the deceased decree holder and in order to enforce the decree obtained by the deceased second respondent herein, the appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground it abated. In the said interlocutary application, the applicant never sought any relief that she should be brought on record in the appeal as the legal representative of the deceased decreeholder. Shortly thereafter another interiocutary application came to be filed in I.A.No. 67 of 1983 by the petitioner herein purporting to be one under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') to implead her as a respondent to the appeal on the ground that she was the adopted daughter of the deceased decree-holder-Smt. Balaga Bangaramma. By an order dated 28-7-1984 the appeal was dismissed as abated. It is a common order passed in the abovementioned interlocutary application and by virtue of the said order, I.A.No.34 of 1983 was allowed and I.A.No. 67 of 1983 was dismissed so also dismissed A.S.No. 54 of 1978. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred three revision petitions viz., C.R.P.Nos. 3104; 3105 and 3106 of 1984 to this Court. C.R.P.No. 3104 of 1984 was preferred against the order of dismissal of appeal on the ground of abatement. The other two revision petitions were directed against that part of the common order, by which, the other interlocutory applications were disposed of, as indicated above. This Court by common order dated 23-9-1986 in the revision petitions held as follows:

(2.) By the date of the above mentioned order, all the proceedings pending by then before the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram, stood transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bobbili. The abovementioned LA.No.34 of 1983 and I.A.No. 67 of 1983 came to be renumbered as I.A.Nos. 181 of 1990 and 182 of 1990. However, by an order dated 16-9-1998, learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili dismissed the main appeal in A.S.No.7 of 1990 basing on an office note. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein once again preferred a revision in C.R.P.No. 4630 of 1998. This Court by order dated 22-1-1999 allowed the said revision petition. In the meanwhile, on 19-6-1998, learned counsel for the applicant in I.A.No. 34 of 1983, which was renumbered as I.A.No. 181 of 1990, made an endorsement to the effect that the interlocutary application is not pressed on the ground that the appeal itself abated. It is difficult to explain this endorsement, but any way, I am not concerned with such endorsement at this stage. The fact remains that the said I.A.No. 181 of 1990 was dismissed. However, it appears, another application in I.A.No.146 of 1999 was filed by the 6th respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in the abovementioned petition - I.A.No.181 of 1990, to restore the abovementioned I.A.No. 181 of 1990 and the same is said to be allowed. I say so because a copy of the order is not placed before me. At any rate. I am not concerned with the said order for the present.

(3.) In the background of the above mentioned facts, the 6th respondent herein filed I.A.No.147 of 1999 purporting to be one under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying that she be impleaded as party respondent to the abovementioned appeal - A.S.No. 7 of 1990. By the impugned order dt. 28-8-1999, the said interlocutary application was allowed. Hence the present revision petition.