THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5010 of 2009 Between: Smt. Kulkarni Prabhavathi ….. Petitioner and Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Adilabad ….. Respondent O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24th August 2009 in I.A.No. 87 of 2009 filed in O.S.No. 44 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The original 4th defendant in the suit is a guarantor, hence, along with the borrower and the rest of the guarantors, he was also sued initially. When the suit summons were taken out, they were returned insofar as the 4th defendant is concerned with an endorsement that he has since died. Therefore, the plaintiff has taken out I.A.No. 87 of 2009 to bring on record the proposed 6th defendant, who is the wife of the deceased 4th defendant, as his legal representative. That Application was ordered. It is that order which is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. When I perused the cause title of the suit, it became clear that the original 4th defendant was working as a Junior Lecturer in the Government Junior College at Kamareddy in Nizamabad District and was residing away from Adilabad. Therefore, the factum of the death of the 4th defendant on 30th March 2007 perhaps may not have been in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, the Application has been taken out immediately after the suit summons have been returned with an endorsement that the original 4th defendant died. It is reasonable to infer that the 4th defendant in the suit being a resident of Kamareddy may have expired on 30th March 2007 at that place and hence, the plaintiff who was carrying on its business at Adilabad may not have come to know of the said fact. Further, there is no material on record from which one can say that the factum of the death of the original 4th defendant was brought to the notice of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Rasetty Rajyalakshmamma v. Rajamuru Kannaiah[1], Ramprasad Dagaduram v.Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala[2], Munshi Ram v. Narsi Ram[3] and Karuppaswamy v. C. Ramamurthy[4]. The principle is now well- settled that if the plaintiff has acted bona fide in suing a dead person for want of knowledge of the said factum, the suit does not become void ab initio. Hence, the impleadment of the legal representatives within the period of limitation is permissible in law. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th February 2010 ksld [1] AIR 1978 AP 279 [2] AIR 1967 Supreme Court 278 [3] AIR 1983 Supreme Court 271 [4] AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2324