ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 89 of 1996, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed against three defendants. The 3rd defendant died on 23-1-1999. This fact was reported by the Counsel for the Defendants 2 and 3, on 30-11-1999, as required under Rule 10-A of Order XXII C.P.C. The trial Court recorded the same.
2. The petitioner states that the factum of death of the 3rd defendant was not intimated to him by his Counsel, for quite some time, and that he changed his Counsel, some time in October 2004. He filed LA. No. 384 of 2004, under Order XXII Rule 9
C.P.C. to set aside the abetment. LA. No. 385 of 2004 was filed, with a prayer to bring the legal representative of the deceased-3rd defendant, on record. Since there was delay of 1956 days in presenting the said application, he filed LA. No. 383 of 2004, under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Through separate orders dated 1-7-2005, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these three C.R.Ps are filed.
3. Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client was pursuing the proceedings with utmost promptitude, but could not take the steps for bringing the legal representatives, on record, within time, on account of the fact that his Counsel in the trial Court did not inform him of the factum. He contends that no prejudice would be caused, if the applications are ordered, and the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the same.
4. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, submits that though the factum of the death of the 3rd defendant was brought to the notice of the petitioner through his Counsel, way back on 30-11-1999, no steps were taken for about 5 years, and the trial Court was left with no alternative, except to dismiss the applications. He further contends that in a suit for perpetual injunction, bringing of legal representatives of a deceased-defendant is not automatic, and much would depend upon the survival of cause of action against the deceased-defendant.
5. The Parliament added Rule 10-A to Order XXII C.P.C. to ensure that the death of any party to the suit is brought to the notice of the other party, or his Counsel, so that steps for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party are taken, without any loss of time. The provision obligates the Counsel engaged by the deceased party, to intimate the factum of the death to the Court, as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite party. It is obviously in compliance with this requirement, that the Counsel for the Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit intimated the trial Court about the death of the 3rd defendant, and it was recorded in the docket order dated 30-11-1999.
6. Whatever may have been the justification for the petitioner in not taking the steps from January 1999 to November 1999, he ought to have filed necessary applications, once the death of the 3rd defendant was brought to his notice. Further, in a suit for injunction, the very basis would be the alleged interference by the defendant. If the petitioner did not feel any interference for about 5 years, from the 3rd defendant, it cannot be said that there existed any cause of action against him. At any rate, the necessity to bring the legal representatives of a deceased-defendant, in a suit for injunction, would depend upon the question as to whether the legal representatives have also continued the same kind of interference, as was complained in the suit. When such is the case, the filing of application by the petitioner, at the belated stage, without making any specific averment that the legal representatives also continued to interfere, does not appear to be proper. The trial Court dismissed the applications, on correct appreciation of facts and law, and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the orders under revisions.
7. The C.R.Ps are accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case, the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and he is facing any interference from the existing parties, or the legal representatives of any deceased party, it shall be open to him to pursue his remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.