NANDIPATI RAMI REDDI Vs. NANDIPATI PADMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in both these appeals is when a suit has been dismissed for a default and has been subsequently restored, whether the interlocutory orders passed by the Court in the suit before the dismissal for default would be considered to be in operation during the period between the dismissal and restoration. Does the restoration of the suit revive the operation of those orders during the period between the dismissal and the restoration ?

(2.) Since the two appeals relate to the same dispute and arise out of the same order, we will dispose them of under a common judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the 2nd defendant while the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the 1st defendant. Indeed, the Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was filed by the 2nd defendant. Since the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant was not heard along with that Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it is brought up for decision along with the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant against the dismissal of his Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) O. S. No. 6/70, was filed in the Subordinate Judges Court, Gudivada, by the present 1st respondent (in the Letters Patent Appeal) for partition of certain properties and for possession of a share therein. He impleaded four defendants to the suit. The first defendant was his own father, the 2nd defendant was his fathers elder brother, the third defendant was his mother and the 4th defendant his sister. One of the defences was that there was a partition between the two brothers viz., defendants 1 and 2 and consequently the latter was not a necessary party to the suit.