LAWS(APH)-1982-6-26

PULINKUTLA PAPANNA Vs. PULIKUNTLA GANGULAMMA

Decided On June 07, 1982
PULINKUTLA PAPANNA Appellant
V/S
PULIKUNTLA GANGULAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 in I.A.670 of 1979 and the proposed Defendants 3 to 5, are the petitioners in this revision petition. This revision petition is filed as against the order adding defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Originally, these defendants were sought to be impleaded as legal representatives of Defendant No.2 in the suit under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, as steps for bringing on record the legal representatives were not pursued within the stipulated time they could not be brought on record as legal representatives of Defendant No. 2, and as such, the suit abated as against them. Thereafter a petition under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to add them as they are the alienees pendente lite from the second defendant in the suit. The court below held that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing the proposed persons on record under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being the alienees or persons who have come into possession of the suit properties on the death of the second defendant under a will and they can be consi- dered as necessary parties to the suit.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the suit has abated due to the inaction on the part of the plaintiff to bring them on record as the legal representa- tives of the second defendant, and as such, they cannot have recourse to the petition under Order, I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding them as parties on the ground that they are in possession of the properties. It is further contended that they are in possession of the properties by virtue of the same Will and therefore this attempt to add them as parties under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to circumvent the abatement of the suit. THE Court below came to the conclusion that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing them on record as defendants as they were in possession of the property. It is true that the failure to bring the parties as legal representatives on record does not disentitle': the plaintiff from impleading the very same persons as defendants on a different ground'altogether, or, on an indepen- dent right or liability of the parties without reference to as legal repre- sentatives. THE proceedings with regard to bringing on record as legal representatives and impleading the same persons as defendants in their own right are distinct and separate. In these circumstances, the order of the court below that the proposed parties can be impleaded as defendants es they have been in possession of the properties is correct and the same is hereby confirmed. THE civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.