Skip to content


Pulikutla Papanna and ors. Vs. Pulikuntla Gangulamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn, Petn. No. 5717 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1982AP480
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10 - Order 22, Rule 4
AppellantPulikutla Papanna and ors.
RespondentPulikuntla Gangulamma and ors.
Appellant AdvocateC. Pattabhirama Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP. Anathasena Rao, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - necessary parties - order 1 rule 10 and order 22 rule 4 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - revision petition against order adding defendants in suit - defendants were sought to be impleaded as legal representatives of defendant no. 2 - held, proposed parties can be impleaded as defendants as they were in possession of properties on death of defendant no. 2 and they can be considered necessary parties to suit. - - it is true that the failure to bring the parties as legal representatives on record does not disentitle the plaintiff from impleading the very same persons as defendants on a different ground altogether, or, on an independent right or liability of the parties without reference to as legal representatives......adding defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. originally, these defendants were sought to be impleded as legal representatives of defendant no. 2 in the suit under o. xxii, r. 4 of the code of civil procedure. but as steps for bringing. on record the legal representatives were not pursued within the stipulated time they could not be brought on record as legal representatives of defendant no. 2, and as such, the suit abated as against them. thereafter a petition under o. 1. r. 10 of the civil p.c. has been filed to add them as they are the alienees pendente lite from the second defendant in the suit. the court below held that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing the proposed persons on record under o.i, r. 10 of the civil p.c. being the alienees or persons who have come.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Respondents 1 to 3 in I. A. 670 of 1979 and the proposed defendants 3 to 5, are the petitioners in this revision petition. This revision petition is filed as against the order adding defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Originally, these defendants were sought to be impleded as legal representatives of defendant No. 2 in the suit under O. XXII, R. 4 of the code of Civil procedure. But as steps for bringing. On record the legal representatives were not pursued within the stipulated time they could not be brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 2, and as such, the suit abated as against them. Thereafter a petition under O. 1. R. 10 of the Civil P.C. has been filed to add them as they are the alienees pendente lite from the second defendant in the suit. The court below held that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing the proposed persons on record under O.I, R. 10 of the Civil P.c. being the alienees or persons who have come into possession of the suit properties on the death of the second defendant under a will and they can be considered as necessary parties to the suit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contents that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the suit has abated due to the inaction on the part of the plaintiff to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the second defendant, and as such, they cannot have recourse to the petition under O. I. R, 10 of the Civil P.C. for adding them as parties on the ground that they are in possession of the properties. It is further contended that they are in possession of the properties by virtue of the same will and therefore this attempt to add them as parties under O. I. R, 10 of the Civil P.C. is to circumvent the abatement of the suit. The court below came to the conclusion that there is no provision precluding the plaintiff from bringing them on record as defendants as they were in possession of the property. It is true that the failure to bring the parties as legal representatives on record does not disentitle the plaintiff from impleading the very same persons as defendants on a different ground altogether, or, on an independent right or liability of the parties without reference to as legal representatives. The proceeding with regard to bringing on record as legal representatives and impleading the same persons as defendants in their own right are distinct and separate. In these circumstances, the order of the Court below that the proposed parties can be impleaded as defendants as they have been in possession of the properties is correct and the same is hereby confirmed.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

4. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //