ARTHER JACOB ROY Vs. M PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No.89 of 1996, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed against three defendants. The 3rd defendant died on 23-1-1999. This fact was reported by the Counsel for the Defendants 2 and 3, on 30-11-1999, as required under Rule 10-A of Order XXH C.P.C. The trial Court recorded the same.

(2.) The petitioner states that the factum of death of the 3rd defendant was not intimated to him by his Counsel, for quite some time, and that he changed his Counsel, some time in October 2004. He filed LA. No.384 of 2004, under Order XXII Rule 9 C.P.C., to set aside the abetment. LA. No.385 of 2004 was filed, with a prayer to bring the legal representative of the deceased-3rd defendant, on record. Since there was delay of 1956 days in presenting the said application, he filed LA. No.383 of 2004, under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Through separate orders dated 1-7-2005, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these three C.R.Ps are filed.

(3.) Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client was pursuing the proceedings with utmost promptitude, but could not take the steps for bringing the legal representatives, on record, within time, on account of the fact that his Counsel in the trial Court did not inform him of the factum. He contends that no prejudice would be caused, if the applications are ordered, and the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the same.