M ANJAIAH Vs. K VENKATESWARLU DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the lower Court committed an error in impleading the petitioner as a party to the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff having failed to implead her as the legal representative of the deceased 14th defendant by following the procedure prescribed under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also brought to my notice that the lower Court committed another error in observing that the plaintiff had no notice of the death of the 14th defendant. A certified copy of the memo filed by the advocate appearing for the l4th defendant in the lower court reads that the death of the 14th defendant in the suit on 9-9-1985 was notified to the advocate for the plaintiff in the lower court on 28-11-1985. It, therefore, follows that the plaintiff had notice of the death of the 14th defendant before expiry of the period-prescribed under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making an application to set aside the abatement. The specific provisions contained in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure Were not resorted to. Instead on 3-7-1986 the plaintiff chose to file an application under Order 1; Rule 10 for impleading the petitioner as 17th defendant on the ground that she is the heir of the deceased 14th defendant, the application having been ordered, the above revision petition was preferred.

(2.) Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the peritioner, relies on some what different judgment of Sen, J., in Bhagwan Swroop vs. Mool chand. The leading judgmen was rendered by Desai., who observed:

(3.) In Pulikutla Papanna vs. Pulikuntla Gangulamma, Rama Rao, J., observed: