HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3209 OF 2008 DATE:11-02-2011 BETWEEN Paladugu Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner AND Mokkapati Sri Venugopala Radha Krishna Murthy (died) And others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3209 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner-defendant No.1 filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of the Junior Civil Judge at Gannavaram made in I.A.No.214 of 2008 in I.A.No.329 of 2002 in O.S.No.242 of 1976, dated 11.7.2008. There is no dispute that the respondents 2 and 3 herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-Makkapati Sri Venugopala Radha Krishna Murthy (first respondent herein) who filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 5.3.1980 by passing a preliminary decree and the appeal filed against the preliminary decree was also dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada on 23.3.1989. Meanwhile, the sole plaintiff-first respondent herein died on 5.4.1997. Respondents 2 and 3, who are claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff filed I.A.No.214 of 2008 to add them as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and to pass a final decree in I.A.No.329 of 2002 filed for passing of final decree. On contest, I.A.No.329 of 2002 was dismissed on 8.3.2004, against which, the respondents 2 and 3 filed a revision in C.R.P.No.3079 of 2005 and the same was allowed by this Court on 30.11.2007 directing the trial Court to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.329 of 2002 in accordance with law duly verifying the application, if any, filed by respondents 2 to 3 to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Pursuant to the said order, I.A. was filed by the respondents 2 and 3 in March, 2001 said to have been returned on 26.4.2001, on representing, it was numbered as I.A.No.214 of 2008 to add them as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff for enabling them to file the final decree petition in I.A.No.329 of 2002. The said petition was taken up for hearing and it was allowed by the impugned order. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed contending that when the respondents 2 and 3 chosen to file final decree proceedings in I.A.No.329 of 2002 and as the same was dismissed on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have no locus standi to file the petition and is barred by limitation, the Court below ought to have seen that I.A.No.214 of 2008 is not maintainable in view of abnormal delay and the same is ought to have been dismissed on that ground. This Court while disposing of C.R.P.No.3079 of 2005 observed that in a suit filed for partition, the necessity would exist for filing of an E.P., if there existed a final decree and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the I.A. filed for final decree on the ground of limitation as law do not stipulate any limitation for filing of application for final decree. The Apex Court in Bikoba Deora Gaikwad & Ors vs. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare & Ors[1] held that an application for initiation of final decree proceedings in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would not be governed by any provision contained in the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. Articles 136 and 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will have no application for filing an application for final decree proceedings. Further the Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and Ors.[2] opined that ‘a final decree proceedings may be initiated at any point of time. No limitation is provided therefor. However, what can be executed is a final decree, and not a preliminary decree, unless and until final decree is a part of the preliminary decree’. When no limitation is prescribed for filing an application to pass a final decree, equally, the respondents 2 and 3 can seek permission of the Court to bring them on record for filing final decree proceedings in place of the deceased plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order in allowing the I.A. filed by the respondents 2 and 3 to add them as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 11, 2011 Tsr. [1] 2008 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 345 [2] (2007) 2 SCC 355