ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16-4-1991 passed in LA. No. 1972 of 1990 in O.S. No. 941 of 1983 of the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Warangal permitting the first respondent herein, who was the petiiion-er in I. A. No. 1972 of 1990 in O.S. No. 941 of 1988 on his file, to be impleaded as the legal representative of her deceased husband late M. Bhadriah.
2. The relevant facts are as follows :
One M. Bhadriah filed a suit O.S. No. 941 of 1983 on the file of the II Addl. District Munsif Warangal against the Gram Pancha-yat Wardhannapet, Warangal District, while the said suit was pending the said plaintiff M. Bhadriah died on 11-4-1990 while so, the revision petitioner having filed I.A. No. 767 of 1990 got herself impleaded as the second plaintiff in the suit as per the order dt. 9-7-1990 in l.A. No. 767 of 1990. Later i.e. on 10-10-1990 the first respondent herein alleging that she is the widow of the deceased Bhadriah filed I.A. No. 1972 of 1990 to implead her as a plaintiff in the suit. Having heard all the parties concerned, under the impugned order, the learned District Munsif allowed LA. No. 1972 of 1990. Then by virtue of the said order, the first respondent herein has to be added as third plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed this revision.
3. Mr. V. Parabrahma Sastry learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that l.A. No. 1972 of 1990 is barred by limitation as the said application was not filed within 90 days from the date of death of the first plaintiff. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, which shows that an application to have the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff has to be filed within 90 days from the date of death of the party concerned. It is not in dispute that admittedly white the first plaintiff died on 11-4-1990, the first respondent herein has come up with l.A. No. 1972 of 1990 only on 10-10-1990 .i.e. beyond 90 days.
4. Mr. T. Veerabhadriah, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that Art. 137 of the limitation Act applies to this case where the period of limitation is three years. He further submits that since his client’s application was made well within three years after the death of Bhadriah, the application is in time. To substantiate his contention, he relies upon Venkataramayya v. Munnamma, . This is a case where the first defendant in the suit died, an application was made to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 on record and some time later since it revealed that the deceased died leaving the widow an application was also made to bring record the said widow of the deceased first defendant. The said application was opposed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. On the said facts it is observed as follows (at p. 407 of AIR) :
“The order of the learned District Munsif cannot be sustained. When the two sons of (he deceased were already brought on record, they represented the estate of the deceased and therefore there was no question of limitation of 90 days as far as the subsequent petition was concerned. If there are several legal representatives it is sufficient if all the legal representatives known after due diligent enquiry are joined within the period of limitation. Where some of the legal representatives have been brought on record an application made within limitation the subsequent application for bringing the other persons on record as legal representatives is not governed by the 90 days rule but is governed by the limitation of three years, as provided for under Art. 181, Limitation Act”.
5. This case directly governs the case on hand. It is to be seen that on the death of Bhadriah the second plaintiff filed an application to implcad her as a party claiming interest in the suit property which was allowed and subsequently the first respondent being the widow filed a separate application to bring her on record being the legal representative of her deceased husband. The above decision lays down that the limitation applicable is Art. 181 of the old Limitation Act which corresponds to Art. 137 of the new Limitation Act.
6. Mr. V. Parabrahma Sastry the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the above decision has no application and he relies upon the decision in Balram v. IIIrd Dist. Judge, , to show that the Limitation Act where the period of limitation prescribed is only 90 days. This is the case where a ceiling appeal was filed by one Rameswar and during pendency of the said appeal, the three sons filed applications to set aside the abatement and to bring them on record after 150 days of the death of late Rameshwar. The Court held that the limitation applicable is one covered by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act where the period of limitation prescribed is 90 days to file an application to bring the legal representatives and 60 days under Art. 121 of the Limitation Act to set aside the abatement. The Supreme Court has further observed that even in respect of appeals filed under the Land Ceiling Act, Order 22 applies. This decision has no application to the facts of this case for the reason that when Bhadriah the plaintiff in the suit died on 11-4-1990 the second plaintiff filed I.A. No. 767 of 1990 and got herself implead-ed as second plaintiff as per the orders dt. 19-7-1990 in time. Thus, there is no question of any abatement in this case as the second plaintiff got herself impleaded in the suit in time. The case of the first respondent herein is that having come to know about the suit she has come up with an application to get herself impleaded as legal representative of her deceased husband. Under these circumstan ces, the decision of this Court referred to above directly applies to the facts of this case.
7. Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in a case where an application was made by the plaintiff or the appellant to bring the legal representatives of the opposite side, and subsequently it came to light that there were some more legal representatives, the subsequent applications are not hit by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. This submission is not correct. The question is when the second plaintiff has impleaded herself as a party to the suit, there was no abatement and consequently if any third party comes up for being impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased party, Article 120 has no application at all.
8. Under these circumstances, I find that the judgment of the lower Court is perfectly in order and finding no merits, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
9. Petition dismissed.