C. Praveen Kumar, J. - (1.) Assailing the order, dated 30.03.2016, passed in I.A.No.524 of 2014 in I.A.No.263 of 2013 in O.S.No.747 of 1988, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking permission to come on record as petitioners 3 to 10, being the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs 1 and 2, was allowed, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
(2.) The facts in issue are as under: R. Subramanyam Reddy and R.Krishna Reddy, filed O.S.No.747 of 1988 against the petitioners herein seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree came to be passed on 23.03.1995. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioners herein preferred A.S.No.51 of 1995 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, which was dismissed for default, on 29.01.2002. While things stood thus, the plaintiff No.1 died on 06.05.1999 and plaintiff No.2 died on 10.03.2004, leaving behind respondents 3 to 10 herein as their legal heirs. As they are the only legal representatives to the deceased plaintiffs, they filed I.A.No.263 of 2013 for passing of final decree. The said petition was dismissed on 23.08.2014, on the ground that the said I.A., was not maintainable since the proposed petitioners have not yet come on record. Having regard to the above, an I.A. came to be filed by the respondents herein to come on record in the final decree proceedings, being the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs 1 and 2.
(3.) A counter came to be filed opposing the same. It is urged that filing of a petition under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., is impermissible under law. It is stated that if the plaintiffs have died after passing of preliminary decree, it is the duty of the proposed parties, who are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs, to come on record within the prescribed time and if no such application is filed, the suit would automatically gets abated. It is further stated that though the suit was decreed on 23.03.1995, the present application came to be filed after lapse of twelve years, which is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act.;