Civil Revn. Petn. No. 2620 of 1997. Case: Penumatsa Narsimha Raju and Ors Vs Andhra Pradesh Vidya Parishad, Machilipatnam and Ors. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revn. Petn. No. 2620 of 1997 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: E. Subba Rao and For Respondents: M. Chandrasekhara Rao |
| Judges | Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code - Rule 9 |
| Citation | AIR 2010 AP 90 |
| Judgement Date | December 31, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
-
This revision is preferred by the petitioners against the dismissal of ATC No. 121 of 1990 by order dated 7-2-1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif/Special Officer, Kakinada under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').
-
The petitioners herein and the respondents 3 to 6 are said to be the legal heirs of Penumatsa Sitaramaraju S/o. Lakshmipathi Raju. The said Sitaramaraju had filed ATC No. 121 of 1990 under Section 8 of the Act seeking relief of remission of 200 bags of makta payable for the year 1990-1991 to the first respondent relating to the petition schedule lands i.e. an extent of Ac.14.04 guntas in Sy. No. 13. Tallarevu Village, Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District. During the pendency of the said ATC before the Principal District Munsif/Special Officer, Kakinada, the said original petitioner died on 3-12-1991 leaving the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6 as legal heirs. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application in I.A. No. 1226 of 1993 together with I.A. (SR) No. 8846 of 1992 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Order 22, Rule 9(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, respectively. The said applications were filed on 19-10-1992 requesting the Principal District Munsif/Special Officer to condone the delay of 171 days in filing application to bring on record the LR's and to set aside abatement. The petitioners had stated in the affidavit that they did not know of the pendency of the ATC and as such, by oversight they could not file the petition to implead the legal representatives within time. They, therefore, sought condonation of delay by impleading themselves as legal representatives of the deceased original petitioner and also to amend the cause title in the petition accordingly and also seeking to condone the delay of 171 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement.
-
Initially notice was ordered on the said applications and later by order dated 7-2-1994 the learned Special Officer held that these petitions are not maintainable in view of the decision of the High Court C. Ramachandra Reddy v. S. Aswathanarayana, 1993 (1) ALT 585 and consequently dismissed the petitions and also dismissed the ATC as abated. Against the aforesaid order of the Special Officer dated 7-2-1994 dismissing ATC No. 121 of 1990 as abated, the present revision is filed.
-
Appearance is entered by the learned counsel on behalf of the first respondents and other respondents are recorded as served except sixth respondent, who is also one of the legal representatives and he is sailing along with the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5.
-
I have heard the revision petition initially on 7-8-2009 when I had passed the following order:
"The only question that needs to be decided in this case is whether the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The original petitioner (since died) had filed an application for remission under Section 16 of the Act before the competent authority. Pending said application he died and his legal representatives, who are petitioners herein, have sought to come on record. They moved an application on 19-10-1992 under Order XXII, Rule 9, CPC. Under the impugned order in this revision the said ATC itself has been dismissed as abated and no orders are passed on the said application. A copy of a decree is produced along with the papers and the learned counsel states that there is no other order passed by the Court below.
Prima facie under Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act, the provisions of CPC as far as possible apply to the Tribunal under this Act and in the absence of any separate rules, contrary under this Act, Order XXII would continue to apply. Secondly under Section 29 sub-clause (2) of the Limitation Act, in the absence of any express exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act to the present Act, Section 4 to 24 (both inclusive) would also apply. In that view of the matter Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also be applicable. In either way, therefore, prima facie the application for bringing on record the LRs' moved by the petitioners was entertainable and ought to have been entertained by the Tribunal below. However, the reasons for rejecting the ATC on the ground of abatement are not evident from the impugned order produced along with the revision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to verify and if available produce the copy of the order.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial