MOHD KALEEMULLAH Vs. MOHD AZIZULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 12 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil judge, Sanga Reddy, against the respondents for partition. All the seven defendants impleaded therein were served. Defendants 1 to 6 entered appearance on receiving the summonses. However, the 7th defendant, by name Khaja Sirajuddin remained ex parte. At a later point of time, he died. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 268 of 2004 under Rule 4 (4) of Order XXII CPC to exempt him from bringing the legal representatives of the 7th defendant on record. The trial court rejected the application through its order dated 11-2-2005. Hence, this revision.

(2.) SRI Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of enacting Rule 4 (4) of Order XXII CPC was to exempt the plaintiff in a suit from bringing on record, the legal representatives of a defendant, who remained ex parte and died later, and the rejection of the application of the petitioner is contrary to it. He further submits that even if the application is allowed, it does not preclude the legal representatives of the deceased 7th defendant from coming on record at a later point of time, if they so want.

(3.) THOUGH respondents 1 to 6 were served, they did not choose to enter appearance.