1. The two civil revision petitions may be disposed by a common order.
The relevant facts are, that the revision petitioner, who is the daughter of one Konda Reddy, had filed an application to implead her also as a legal representative of her deceased father on the ground that she is a class I heir to her father and also on the ground of a certain will said have been executed by late Konda Reddy, her father. The lower Court had dismissed C. M. P. 17 of 1977 filed by her for condonation of the delay in filing the application to bring her on record as a legal representative. As a consequence, her petition to be impleaded as a legal representative was also dismissed. In the two present revision petitions the correctness of these orders of the lower appellate Court are questioned.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are, that the suit which gave raise to these proceedings previously came up to the High Court in a second appeal. The 3rd respondent in the second appeal was Konda Reddy, the father of the petitioner. He died on 20-8-1974. In second appeal, respondents 1 and 2, who were minors the and who were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent in the second appeal. Ultimately, the second appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the lower Court. The appeal in the lower Court is A. S. No. 12 of 1971 and is pending disposal after remand by the High Court.
3. The Court below dismissed the C. M. P. No. 17/1977 in A. S. No.12/1971 filed by the present petitioner holding that there were no grounds made out for condoning the delay in filing the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs.
4. It is contended by Miss. V. Lakshmidevi for the petitioner that there was really no need for the petitioner to have filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing an application to bring her on record as a legal representative of her deceased father. It is her contention that to an application like the present one wherein her two minor sons have been recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased Konda Reddy in second appeal, it is not Art. 120 or 121 of the Limitation Act that would apply, but it is Art. 137 of the Limitation Act that is attracted. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation three years for the filling of any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the division, the commencement of the period being when the right to apply accrues. She submitted that there is really no question of limitation in the instant case for the reason that already the two sons were on record as legal representatives and that being so, any application by a person in the position of the present petitioner can file an application within three years under the residuary Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. Her contention is supported by a decision of this Court reported in Venkataramayya v. Munnemma, : AIR1963AP406 . It was ruled in that decision that where there are several legal representatives of a deceased defendant, it is sufficient if all the legal representatives known after due diligent enquiry are joined within the period of limitation and where some of the legal representatives have been brought on record on an application made within the limitation, the subsequent application for bringing the other persons on record as legal representatives is not governed by the 90 days; rule, but is governed by the limitation of three years, as provided for under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. That was a case under the old Limitation Act. The principle of this decision is applicable by reason of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act of 1963. Following the above decision, I allow C. R. P. No. 800/1977, setting aside the order of the Court below. I hold that this is really a case where there is no delay. The petitioner's father, Konda Reddy, died on 20-8-1974 and the present application in the Court below was filed on 20 -2-1977. It is clearly within three years from the date of the death of Konda Reddy. As a consequence of allowing C. R. P. No. 800/1977, C.R.P.No. 801/1977 also must be allowed, as the order in that revision petition was only consequential upon the order now set aside by me in C. R. P. No.800/1977. Thus both the civil revision petitions stand allowed. As the respondents are not represented, there will be no order as to costs.
5. Petitions Allowed.