1. The plaintiff Vedachala Gramani filed O.S. No. 90 of 1946 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to set aside an order rejecting the petition for redelivery of properties from which he had been dispossessed by the first defendant in the action. Pending trial the first defendant died on the 23rd November, 1946 leaving behind him his wife Devaki Ammal and a daughter by name Sivasankari Ammal, wife of Sendilvelu Mudaliar of Sembiam. The plaintiff then filed an application to bring on record Devaki Ammal as legal representative of the deceased first defendant within three months from the date of death and the lower Court accordingly directed that the wife should be brought on record as the sixth defendant. During the course of that enquiry it appeared that Singaravelu Mudaliar had left a will in and by which the said property was bequeathed to his daughter Sivasankari Ammal. On the 27th February the widow was im-pleaded as the sixth defendant. The plaintiff: filed another petition, I.A. No. 199 of 1947, to implead the daughter also as the legal representative by reason of her enjoying the property as legatee under the will of Singaravelu Mudaliar. This petition was filed on the 10th April 1947. It was, supported by an affidavit wherein it was stated that the plaintiff came to know of the will and the bequest thereunder only on the 9th April 1947. The daughter to whom notice was ordered appeared and filed a counter-affidavit objecting to her being impleaded as defendant in the action on the ground that the petition was filed too late and that the plaintiff knew all along of the will of the deceased Singaravelu Mudaliar and the bequest in favour of the daughter. The lower Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the delay between the 27th February 1.947 and 10th April 1947 has not been explained properly and has observed further that every day's delay should be accounted for. The revision petition is against this order of the lower Court.
2. It is conceded for the respondent that the only objection to the petition is based on the unexplained delay between the 27th February and 10th April,. 1947. The lower Court is wrong in thinking that each day's delay of the said period should be explained satisfactorily. This is really a case where the petitioner had two months time to set aside the abatement, if there was abatement at all. As a matter of fact there was really no abatement because there was a prior order impleading the widow as the sixth defendant. In a case like this where one party had been impleaded in time as a legal representative and it is found necessary later on to implead another person as the real legal representative and there is nothing to suggest that the earlier petition impleading the wrong person as the legal representative was not bona fide, there is no question of limitation as such which precludes the latter petition being entertained and ordered by the Court. The lower Court has therefore acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and its order has to be set aside.
3. It is further contended by Mr. Rama Iyengar for the respondent that there was no stay of the trial of the suit as regards the other defendants during the pendency of the revision petition here and that the plaintiff had in fact obtained a decree against those defendants. He argues that this operates as a bar to the entertainment of the revision petition now and will preclude the plaintiff from proceeding with the trial against the daughter if she is now allowed to be brought on record as a supplemental defendant. I do not agree with this contention. The daughter is directed to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Singaravelu Mudaliar and impleaded as seventh defendant. The trial will go on as against the seventh defendant who will have the usual opportunity of filing a written statement and contesting the suit in the ordinary manner. This revision is accordingly allowed with costs payable by the respondent.