GADE CHANDRAREDDY Vs. GADE RAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J. Suresh Babu representing Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Venkat Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondents.

(2.) The civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order made in IA No.2853 of 2003 in AS No. 13 of 2003 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to Code, to implead the legal representatives of the deceased person, the 7th respondent as respondents in appeal, had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would maintain that the petitioners had no knowledge about the death of the party at all and when they came to know about the death, immediately they moved the application and hence the question of limitation would not arise. Since from the date of knowledge the application is perfectly within limitation, the learned Counsel would also maintain that no separate application need be filed for condonation of delay in such matters. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to Order 22 Rule 10-A of the Code and would maintain that inasmuch as the parties bound to intimate the death, had not intimated, in accordance with the procedure, the aforesaid provision being mandatory, the learned Judge totally erred in dismissing the application on unsustainable grounds. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.