IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.M. Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge Wednesday, the 31 st day of July, 2013
I.A.1028/2012 IN O.S.168/2007
Between:-
1. Appikonda Venkata Satyarao (died)
Proposed parties to be added as plaintiffs 2 to 6:
2. Appikonda Padmavathi
3. Appikonda Narendra Sanjeevi
4. Appikonda Jotsna
5. Appikonda Jhansi
6. Appikonda Ganesh Proposed plaintiffs And:-
1. Appikonda Dharma Rao
2. Appikonda Venkata Bheemarao
3. Smt.Appikonda Rani
4. Appikonda Vasu
5. A.Chinni alias Prabhu
6. Appikonda (Sunkara) Ammaji
7. The Commissioner, Anakapalle Municipality...Respondents
This petition coming before me on 22-07-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Venkata Jogayya, Advocate for petitiners and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for 6th respondent, respondents 1 to 5 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivers the following:-
O R D E R
1.This is an application filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and section 151 CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of
Practice praying the Court to permit the petitioners to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
2. The respondents 1 to 5 remained exparte in the petition. Respondent
No.6 filed counter. Respondent NO.7 remained exparte in the main suit, as such, no notice is served in this petition.
3. Heard both sides.
4. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.
5. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the petitioners can be permitted to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff?
2
6. POINT: The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sole plaintiff filed the main suit for declaration of his title in respect of item No.2 of the schedule property or alternatively for confirmation of the partition among the other sharers and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
7.During pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died. The petitioners 2 to 6 are the wife and children of the deceased plaintiff and as such they are necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, the petitioners wants to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to prosecute the suit further. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after the demise of sole plaintiff, the petitioners succeeded the disputed property and as such they are proper and necessary parties to the suit and prayed the Court to allow the application.
8.On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners did not choose to file the present application to implead themselves as plaintiffs, immediately after demise of the sole plaintiff, there is a delay of 462 days in filing the present application and the delay was caused intentionally to harass the respondents. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 5 colluded and as such the petitioners cannot be permitted to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9.Perused the record and considered the submissions of both counsel on record. Admittedly, the sole plaintiff filed the main suit against the defendants and died during pendency of the suit. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The petitioners wants to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 in the main suit contending that they succeeded the estate of the deceased plaintiff. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners 2 to 6 colluded together cannot be accepted at this stage. The petitioners in my opinion shall be given an opportunity to come on record as plaintiffs to prosecute the suit further. Moreover, the delay in filing the present 3 application is condoned as per Orders in IA 1026/2012 dt.31.07.2013. Therefore, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 6 being the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to prosecute the suit further.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed without costs.
Dictated to Personal Assistant,, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in open court, this the 31st day of July, 2013.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
4