Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. - (1.) These appeals are directed against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21117 and 21118 of 2003 dated 19th August, 2003. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has allowed all the petitions/applications.
(2.) In the applications/petitions, Respondent No.3, herein, had sought the following directions: CMP No. 21114/2003: Petition under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titled therewith, the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioners to bring the above stated persons as legal representatives of the deceased sole Respondent in Appeal No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the High Court. CMP No. 21115/2003: Petition U/s praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal Order dated 6.2.98 in AS No.8 of 1985 and to restore the appeal to file. CMP No. 21116/2003: Petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of sole Respondent i.e. Lanka Venkateswarlu. CMP No. 21117/2003: Between Sri D.E.V Apparao.... Petitioner/impleaded Petitioner in AS No. 8 of 1985 on the file of High Court And: 1. The State of A.P. rep. by District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Tahsildar, Visakhpatnam.... Respondent/Appellants 3. Lanka Venkateswarlu (died).... Respondent Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, prays this Honble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners society to be impleaded as Appellant No. 3 along with the Appellants No. 1 and 2 in AS. 8 of 1985 on the file of the Honble Court to prosecute the appeal. CMP No. 21118/2003: Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Govt. pleader for Appeal for Petitioners in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and of Mr. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for petitioner in CMP No. 21117 of 2003 and of Mr. M.S.R. Subramanyam, Advocate for the Respondents in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and G.P. for Appeal for the Respondents in CMP No. 21117 of 2003.
(3.) We may now briefly notice the relevant facts as stated in the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order of the High Court. The predecessor of the Appellants, i.e., Shri Lanka Venkateswarlu, (hereinafter referred to as original plaintiff), brought a suit O.S. No. 72 of 1979 before the subordinate judge Visakhapatnam 3 for the declaration of his title as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession. The suit schedule property, to the extent of 2 acres was, according to the original plaintiff, covered by survey No. 73/12 in Thokada village. He had purchased the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 15th July, 1961 from one Gonna Appanna son of Venkataswamy of China Gantyda village. The original plaintiff was constrained to file the aforesaid suit on coming to know that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule land to be "banjar land" which vested in the Government. He had also learned that the land was in imminent danger of being illegally alienated by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They were claiming that the land was required to issue Pattas to weaker sections of society.;