IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.M.P.No.28 OF 2007 AND A.S.NO.1576 OF 1996. Date:21-10-2009. A.S.M.P.No.28 OF 2007:- Between:- Sri Kista Reddy .. Petitioner/Appellant And Sri Pratap Reddy (died per L.Rs. proposed parties) .. Respondents And A.S.NO.1576 OF 1996 Between:- Kista Reddy .. Appellant/plaintiff And Pratap Reddy .. Respondent/defendant ORDER:- This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 2873 days in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of deceased sole respondent on record. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel for the proposed respondents. 3. Perused the records. 4. The petitioner is the appellant/plaintiff. He filed the suit – O.S.No.19 of 1995 for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the plaint A and B schedule properties measuring Ac.14.09 guntas in Survey No.186/AA. After full-fledged trial, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the appeal. During the pendency of the trial, the sole respondent/defendant died on 05.06.1998. The petitioner has not taken any steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent. About eight years after the death of the sole respondent, the appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 2873 days in filing the petition to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent/defendant on record. 5. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the death of the respondent till the year 2006 and it is only when his counsel contacted him about listing of the matter before the Court, he made enquiries and came to know about the death of sole respondent on 05.06.1998. 6. The only ground on which the petitioner seeks condonation of delay is that till the year 2006, he had no knowledge or information about the death of the respondent and, therefore, he could not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner was residing in a different village and the factum of death of the respondent is also not intimated to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent, as required under Order XXII Rule 10A C.P.C. and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to come to know about the death of respondent earlier. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-proposed legal representatives opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is not stranger to the respondent, as both of them are closely related and the petitioner was previously residing in the same village and the affidavit filed by the petitioner is silent as to when the petitioner shifted from the said village Yelogi of Zahirabad Taluk. He, therefore, contends that the enormous delay of 2873 days has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and the same cannot be condoned. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner/appellant and the deceased respondent are cousins and thus closely related. Previously, the petitioner/appellant was also residing in the same village Yelogi as can be seen from the cause title of the suit and the decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner claims to have shifted from the said village, but he has not chosen to disclose as to when he shifted from Yelogi village and to where. Though in the cause title of the present application, the petitioner has stated that he is resident of Amlapur village of Bidar Taluk, there is nothing on record to show as to when he shifted to the said village from Yelogi. Even by the date of filing of the appeal, the petitioner/appellant was residing in Yelogi village only. As can be seen from the cause title of grounds of appeal, the sole respondent is also resident of the same village. Even otherwise, it is not disputed that the village Amlapur in the Bidar Taluk where the petitioner claims to have subsequently shifted is only 40 kilometers from their native village Yelogi village of Zahirabad Taluk. 9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/appellant and the deceased respondent/defendant are closely related as cousins and that they were residents of the same village till the filing of the appeal and even assuming that the petitioner shifted to some other village, which is forty kilometers away as claimed by him, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge of the death of his cousin brother-the sole respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision reported in KATARI SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. KOPPISETTI SUBBA RAO AND OTHERS[1] wherein it was held as follows: “It is no doubt true that in terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as also the provisions of the said Act, a suit must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The civil court has no jurisdiction to extend the same.” In the above case, the delay sought to be explained is 2381 days and 2601 days which is much less than the delay of 2873 days occurring in the present application. The observations made in the above decision extracted supra squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The feigned ignorance of the factm of death of the sole respondent on the part of the appellant cannot be countenanced at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the parties are closely related and have been litigating for several years and are residents of the same village or neighbouring villages. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned counsel for the respondent did not intimate the Court also about the death of the deceased respondent to enable the petitioner to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record, as required under Order XXII Rule 10 A C.P.C. In that connection, he relies upon a decision in PERUMON BHAGVATHY DEVASWOM PERINADU VILLAGE VS. BHARGAVI AMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS[2] wherein it was held as follows: “Rule 10A of Order 22 casts a duty on the counsel for the respondent to inform the court about the death of such respondent whenever he comes to know about it. When the death is reported and recorded in the order sheet/proceedings and the appellant is notified, the appellant has knowledge of the death and there is a duty on the part of the appellant to take steps to bring the legal representative of the deceased on record, in place of the deceased. The need for diligence commences from the date of such knowledge. If the appellant pleads ignorance even after the court notifies him about the death of the respondent that may be indication of negligence or want of diligence.” 12. As seen from the provision contained in Order XXII Rule 10A C.P.C. and also the observations made in the above decision, a duty is, no doubt, cast on the learned counsel appearing for the deceased party to inform the Court about the death of the deceased only when he comes to know about the same. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that in spite of having knowledge of the death of respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent failed to intimate the Court about the same. The petitioner, who is closely related to the deceased respondent and resident of the same village, having failed to take necessary steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record, cannot be permitted to throw the blame on the learned counsel for the deceased respondent for not informing the Court about the death of respondent, especially when there is nothing on record to show that the learned counsel had knowledge about the death of respondent and still failed to report the same to the Court. The decisions sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The abnormal delay of 2873 days in filing the application for condoning the delay has not been satisfactorily explained at all. It is clearly a case where there is negligence and latches on the part of the petitioner/appellant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased-sole respondent on record and in the absence of satisfactory explanation, such negligence or latches, resulting in abnormal delay of 2873 days in taking the steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased-sole respondent on record, cannot be condoned. 14. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal suit is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st October, 2009 AMD [1] 2009 AIR SCW 4640 [2] 2008 AIR SCW 6025