An objection had also been raised that the petitioner was number liable to pay the amount of the decree unless principal debtor defendant was proceeded against.
Thereafter, Muthu Marakala, the second From the Judgment and Order dated 19 4 1994 of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.
The suit had been filed under Order 34 Rule 4 for the recovery of the money due under an hypotheca.
A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 28 6 1989 on the basis of a joint memo filed by the parties.
232 of 1986 filed in the Court of Civil Judge at Udipi.
That application was allowed by the trial companyrt.
The father of the petitioner was the 2nd defendant in OS No.
316 of 1991, to pass final decree, when was filed by the plaintiff, it also made an application to bring the petitioner as legal representative of deceased second respondent, which was opposed on the ground that such application was barred by limitation and the preliminary decree, itself, had abated after the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of defendant 2.
Delay companydoned.
An Application No.
782 of 1994 defendant surety, died.
