A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. K.S.Prakasa Rao (Died)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No.2892 of 2007

ORDER:

This revision is coming up since June, 2007. Earlier on behalf of the revision petitioner it was submitted on 11.11.2010 that though this Court on 7.3.2008 permitted the Counsel for the petitioner to serve notices on the respondents by registered post acknowledgement due and file proof of service, the service could not be effected on the respondents and therefore substituted service be permitted. That representation was rejected by the order dt. 11.11.2010. Till date respondents 2 to 5 who are said to represent the sole defendant in the suit, who died pending adjudication of the suit have not been served despite notice through having been ordered.

On consideration of the revision on merits, it is seen that the revision itself is not maintainable. It is directed against the order dt. 4.12.2006 of the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli rejecting I.A.No. 1085 of 2005 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 and r/w Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to add legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant as defendants 2 to 5.

The suit was filed by the revision petitioner against the sole defendant for recovery of Rs. 76,723.90 claimed to be due to the revision petitioner as arrears of rent towards a canteen run by the deceased sole defendant. It would appear that the counsel for the defendant submitted a memo on 22.4.2005 intimating that the sole defendant died quite some time ago, however no date of death of the sole defendant was mentioned in the memo. Thereafter, on 4.7.2005, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 1085 of 2006 to bring respondents 2 to 5 on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant. This application was rejected by the court and hence this revision.

I.A.No. 1085 of 2005 was rejected on the ground that it was not

accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. in the context of the sole defendant having died long ago and the application to bring on record the legal representatives having been filed beyond 90 days from the date of death of the sole defendant.

In the facts and circumstances above, the order of the court below impugned in this revision suffer from no infirmity warranting revisional interference. The revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

GODA RAGHURAM, J

25.11.2011. KRB.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

C.R.P.No2892 of 2007

ORDER:

Dt. 25.11.2011.