THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 4359 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.289 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, against the deceased-1st respondent and his wife, 2nd respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent died on 27.03.2005. Left to himself, the petitioner did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of the 1st respondent on record. However, the 2nd respondent and her son, 3rd respondent herein filed I.A.No.958 of 2003 to bring them on record as legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent. Since there was a delay of 159 days, they filed I.A.No.1595 of 2006. It is stated that the delay occurred on account of the bereavement in the family and lack of legal knowledge. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 25.07.2011. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not taken any steps leading to the filing of this revision in his interest. When in a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, the contesting defendant dies, it is the duty of the plaintiff to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. Any failure on his part would be detrimental to the suit itself, since it would abate. This would become more deleterious, in case, the cause of action vis-à-vis the remaining respondents is indivisible. Soon after the death of the 1st respondent, the petitioner ought to have taken steps to bring the legal representatives on record. He himself miserably failed in this regard. The serious consequence, which would have defeated the suit itself, was avoided by the respondents by filing an I.A. to come themselves on record. The petitioner should have been at once thankful to them for their help, since but for the I.A. filed, he would himself have been disabled from avoiding the consequence of abatement of the suit, on account of the death of the 1st respondent. At any rate, the delay is not enormous and it was properly explained. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 4359 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 JSU