THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1673 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: 10.10.2014 Between:
Byrapuneni Subba Rao and others …Petitioners And The State of A.P. and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1673 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service nobody appeared for the respondents on 20.9.2014 or today when the matter is taken up for hearing.
A suit for perpetual injunction being O.S.No. 311 of 2007 filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 is pending trial before the Court below and the first plaintiff died on 30.11.2010 during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed an application to bring on record the petitioners 4 and 5 herein as legal representatives of the deceased-first plaintiff in the said suit and since there was a delay of 624 days in filing the said application, they moved I.A.No. 706 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the said delay in filing the LR application. The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants on the ground that no steps were taken by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 earlier. The trial Court, under the impugned order, dismissed the said application and declined to condone the delay. Hence this revision.
It is evident from the record that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not aware of the address of the proposed parties and it took two years for them to locate their address and in the circumstances, therefore, there was delay in filing the LR application. It is to be seen that the suit is for merely bare injunction and the proposed parties are admittedly legal representatives of the deceased-first plaintiff. The delay ought to have been condoned by the trial Court by imposing costs on the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the interest of substantial justice.
In view of that, therefore, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, IA No. 706 of 2013 shall stand allowed and consequentially the LR application shall also stand allowed. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law from the stage at which it was stopped. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall deposit costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundreds only) to the credit of the suit and the respondents/defendants shall be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 10.10.2014 KR