NALLURU RAVAMMA Vs. NALLURI KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no merit in the petition.

(2.) Petitioners claim to be the Legal Representatives of Plaintiff No.l inO.S.No.96 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kandukur. They filed IANo.674of 1997 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead them as the L.Rs. of deceased 1st plaintiff. The learned District Munsif, Kandukur by his order dated 14-7-1997 dismissed the same. The deceased Plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the proceedings. His L.Rs. were not brought on record by Plaintiff No.2 within the period of limitation, Therefore, the suit is abated in so far as Plaintiff No. 1 is concerned. The petitioners made the application to come on record as plaintiffs. The whole approach is misconceived. If a suit abates due to the death of a party, the remedy is to file ah application to set aside the abatement under Order 22, Rule 9 C.P.C., if necessary with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, in filing such application, and not to come up with an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. The two approaches are totally different. A suit which has abated will not revive by merely coming on record as parties. The learned advocate for the petitioners submit that the trial of the suit is concluded and the matter is posted for arguments. Such a stage may not come in the way of making any application to set aside the abatement, however, to be decided no merits. Therefore, the remedy for the petitioner may be different than this.

(3.) In the result, the petition is dismissed as having no merit to be admitted, however, with liberty for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy permissible in law as indicated above or in any other manner. No costs.