(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner in CRP Nos. 3710 and 3720 of 1988 and tile appellant in CMA No. 1270 of 1988. She filed the suit for specific perfermance of an agreement of sale dated 18-3-1979. After the trial was completed the sole defendant died on 16-8-86.
(2.) The petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant should have been filed on 14-11-1986. 15th and 16th of November 1986 being holidays, the L R application was filed-on 17-11-1986 with a delay of three days. When there is delay in filing the L R application, the court should have rejected the same on the ground that the suit has abated. But the Subordinate Judge's court at Ramachandrapuram either advertantly or inadvertantly has registered the L R application as I A No. 57 of l9S7. After notice was served to the proposed legal representatives, in the euater filed by them, an objection was raised tkat the suit has abated by reason of not filing the L R application in time. Thereupon the plain tiff filed I A No 1025 of 1987 to set aside the abatement. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed both the I As, holding that there is an abnormal delay of more than, one year and three months from the time of death of the defendant and therefore, there are no ben a fides on the part of the plaintiffpetitioner in filing the L R application. As I observed already when the L R application was filed with a delay of 3 days, the Subordinate Judge's court at Ramachandrapuram ought not to have numbered the L R application. Having numbered the LR application the plaintiff might have been under a mistaken impression that the LR application was filed in time. When the fact of abatement was brought to the notice of the plaintiff by the proposed legal representatives, immediately she filed I A No. 1025 of 1987.
(3.) Though the delay in filing the L.R. arplieatien is technically three days, the delay in fact, is only one day because 15th and 16th of November, 1986 happened to be holidays.