KOTAMIDA RAMAYYA Vs. CHINNA CHENNARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ananatapur in I.A. 862/70 in O.S.No. 61/70 allowing the application for impleading 15 persons as defendants 16 to 30 in the suit under order 1 rule 10 CPC The suit was filed by the respondent, Chinna Chennarayappa, for partition and separate possession of one- third share in the suit properties against bis father, brothers, uncles and some other alleged joint sharers. Defendants 1,5,6 and one Chinna Adeppa, the father of Defendants 7 to 11, are brothers. The plaintiff and defendants 2,3, and 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 12th dtfendant, a stranger, claims to be a co-sharer in respect of some of the items of the suit properties. Defendant 13 is the daughter of the 12th defendant. It is stated that the suit was originally decreed, but the appeal against that decree was allowed and the suit dismissed. But on Letters Patent Appeal, the dismissal of the suit was set aside and the suit remanded for fresh trial, Thereafter when the suit was about to be taken up for trial, the plaintiff-respondent filed the application.

(2.) I.A. 862/70, out of which this revision petition arises, stating that the 7th defendant in the suit had died leaving behind his wife, seven sons and five daughters and that the 12th defendant also died leaving behind his widow, a son and a daughter, the 13 defendant and that all the aforesaid persons are entitled to shares in some of the suit properties and that they are co-owners and that therefore they are proper and necessary parties and should be impleaded as party defen- dants.

(3.) Notice of this application wes served on all the other defendants and also the persons proposed to be impleaded as party defendants. Only the 4th defendant contested the application. The other defendants on record did not file a counter, and the proposed parties remained ex-parte. The 4th defendant contended that defendants 7 and 12 in the suit died long ago and as no petitions were filed for impleading their L.R.s within the time prescribed, the suit had abated and the L.Rs. could not be impleaded after such a long delay.