THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No. 16258 of 1995 ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed against order dated 23.11.1994 in A.T.A.No.70 of 1992 passed by the Court of District Judge, Guntur. By impugned order, learned District Judge confirmed order of Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munisif in I.A.No.218 of 1992 in A.T.C.No.14 of 1991, dated 28.07.1992. Petitioner is statedly cultivating tenant of land admeasuring Acs.1.22 cents in D.A.No.486 of Vellatur Village (hereinafter referred to as petition schedule land). He filed an application being A.T.C.No.14 of 1991 before Special Officer for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant and for consequential injunction to respondents 3 to 6 herein. Third respondent died during pendency of said case. Petitioner, therefore, filed I.A.No.218 of 1992 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to implead respondents 7 to 10 herein – wife, sons and daughters of deceased third respondent – his Legal Representatives. Application was dismissed by Special officer. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner then preferred A.T.A.No.70 of 1992. It was also dismissed. In this writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner is resident of Donepudi village and second respondent is resident of Vellatur village. Therefore, he was not aware of death of third respondent and his counsel did not file memo, as required under Order 22 Rule 10(A) of CPC. He nextly contends that both the authorities below were in error in dismissing application to implead Legal Representatives is barred by limitation, because, no intimation was given to petitioner. Original authority, having noticed that petitioner filed application under Section 151 of CPC, held that such application filed beyond period of limitation without explaining delay and laches and without showing any sufficient cause cannot be detained. Appellate Court also agreed with learned Special Officer and noticed that there was no separate application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1965 (‘Limitation Act’, for brevity) to condone delay. There is no dispute that petitioner filed application under Section 151 of CPC sometime in 1992, when third respondent died on 16.09.1991. There was a delay. As held by this Court in C.Ramachandra Reddy v S.Aswarthanarayana[1], there is no provision for extending period of limitation by Special Officer of Tribunal and that Limitation Act has no application. Relevant observations are as follows. In the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 1974, there is no provision extending the period of limitation by the Special Officer or the Tribunal. Since the Special officer is not a Civl Court, as discussed earlier, though manned by an officer of the Judicial cadre, the Limitation Act, had no application to the proceedings before him since the application of the Limitation Act either wholly or partly, is not expressly provided for in the said Act. Reference may be had for an authority for this proposition to the decision reported in Sakuru v Tanaji (AIR 1985 SC 1279), again, where under, it is stated as follows: ”The Collector before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under S.90 of the Act not being a Court, the Limitation Act, as such, had no applicability to the proceedings before him. But even in such a situation, the relevant special statute may contain an express provision conferring on the appellate authority, such as the Collector, the power to extend the prescribed period of limitation on sufficient cause being shown by laying down that the provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to such proceedings. In the absence of any provision to this effect in Andhra Pradesh(A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956, as amended by the Act 39 of 1974, no such power to invoke the provisions of the Limitation Act to extend the time for filing such application, can be inferred. (emphasis supplied) Presumably, for the reason that Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application, petitioner filed application under Section 151 of CPC to bring Legal Representatives. Both the Courts below, having found that sufficient cause was not shown, dismissed application. This Court does not find any error in the approach of original authority as well as appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 03, 2009 Bvv [1] (1993) 1 ALT 585