ALLI IYLAIAH Vs. ALLI RAJALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision raises an important question, in relation to interpretation of section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act' ). The proceedings, between the parties herein, have a chequered career, and they are narrated, in brief, as under:

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed O. S. No. 690 of 1987 against the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, for recovery of small extents of land, i. e. 27 sq. metres from respondent No. 3; 19 sq. metres from petitioner herein, and 12 sq. metres, from the 4th respondent. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are brothers, while the 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. An ex parte decree was passed on 10-06-1988. The 3rd respondent i. e. the 1st defendant in the suit, alone filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. , being I. A. No. 1044 of 1988. The trial Court dismissed the I. A. , on 30-10-1990. Thereupon, he filed C. M. A. Mo. 46 of 1993 in the Court of District judge, Warangal. The C. M. A. was allowed and the I. A. was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration.

(3.) THE respondents 1 and 2 filed C. R. P. No. 4895 of 1998, aggrieved by the order in C. M. A. No. 46 of 1993. Since there was no order of stay in C. R. P. No. 4895 of 1998, the trial Court proceeded with the I. A. No. 1044 of 1988, after remand, and allowed it on 15-04-1995. Respondents 1 and 2 filed C. R. P. No. 1891 of 1995. In C. M. P. No. 7990 of 1995, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit, through order dated 15-06-1995. While C. R. P. 4895 of 1998 was dismissed as infructuous, on 10-09-1999, C. R. P. No. 1891 of 1995 was allowed on the same day, by setting aside the order in I. A. No. 1044 of 1988, and remanding the matter to the trial court. The said I. A. was allowed on 21-02-2007 after remand, and the suit itself was decreed against the 3rd respondent on 14-11-2007.