BUDUMURU VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. PONNADA KRISHNA RAO DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision petitions arise out of orders passed in two separate applications filed in O.S, No.85 of 2001 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajam.

(2.) The petitioner filed the suit against one Ponnada Krishna Rao for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. Even before the trial of the suit was commenced, the sole defendant is said to have died. The petitioner states thatshe was neitherinformed the date of death, nor could she know the same, on account of the fact that she shifted her residence to Visakhapatnam. On coming to know about this development, she filed I.A. No.602 of 2002 under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. to set aside the abatement. Since, there was delay of 160 days in filing I.A. No.602 of 2002, she filed I.A. No.697 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. Through its order, dated 12-6-2003, the trial Court dismissed I.A. No.697 of 2002. On the ground that I.A. No.697 was dismissed, the trial Court dismissed I .A. No.602 of 2002. Hence, these two revision petitions.

(3.) Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basically, under Rule 10-A of Order XXII C.P.C. it was the obligation of the counsel appearing for the defendant in the suit, to intimate the factum of death of his client duly serving a copy of such intimation on the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. She submits that this vital step was not taken and that in the absence of such intimation, the petitioner cannot be said to have been indifferent or not diligent, in pursuing the remedy. Though notices were served on the proposed legal representatives they have not responded.