Lal Chand Vs. Sh. Paras Ram (D) by LRs. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4131 of 1991
Petitioner: Lal Chand
Respondent: Sh. Paras Ram (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4131 of 1991
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 20, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 22 Rules 3, 9 with Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Civil Suit – Abatement of – Application for substitution and for setting aside abatement filed late – Application seeking condona-tion of delay – Applicants pleading lack of knowledge about the advocate engaged by deceased appellant as the ground for delay. Held explanation not being satisfactory. Application ordered to be rejected.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The sole appellant had died on 23.6.1994. An application was moved on 1.2.1999 on behalf of the respondents for dismissing the appeal as abated. It was thereafter that an application was filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution and for setting aside the abatement. This application dated 11.3.1999 was filed on 16.3.1999. The only ground on the basis of which condonation of delay in filing the application is sought for is contained in paras 3 and 4 of the
application which are reproduced below:-
“3. That the applicants although were aware of the proceedings pending before this Hon’ble Court but did not have the knowledge about the counsel/advocate who had been engaged by the ap-pellant to pursue the matter.
4. That after the death of the appellant the applicants made earnest efforts to find out about the case but due to handicap of their being located at far off village and in the absence of any guidance, were not able to bring the application for bringing themselves on the record of the case. The knowledge of the case came to the applicants when a letter was received by them from the learned advocate, who was engaged by their ances-tor regarding the application having been filed in this Hon’ble Court by the respondents for abatement of the proceed-ings. This letter was sent by the advocate on 15.2.99 and was received by the present applicants only during the 1st week of March and thereafter, the applicants have moved this Hon’ble Court immediately without further loss of time.”.
We are not satisfied with the explanation set out above. Consequently, the application is rejected.
2. The application for substitution having been rejected, the appeal is dismissed as having abated.
1. The sole appellant had died on 23.6.1994. An application was moved on 1.2.1999 on behalf of the respondents for dismissing the appeal as abated. It was thereafter that an application was filed on behalf of the appellant for substitution and for setting aside the abatement. This application dated 11.3.1999 was filed on 16.3.1999. The only ground on the basis of which condonation of delay in filing the application is sought for is contained in paras 3 and 4 of the
application which are reproduced below:-
“3. That the applicants although were aware of the proceedings pending before this Hon’ble Court but did not have the knowledge about the counsel/advocate who had been engaged by the ap-pellant to pursue the matter.
4. That after the death of the appellant the applicants made earnest efforts to find out about the case but due to handicap of their being located at far off village and in the absence of any guidance, were not able to bring the application for bringing themselves on the record of the case. The knowledge of the case came to the applicants when a letter was received by them from the learned advocate, who was engaged by their ances-tor regarding the application having been filed in this Hon’ble Court by the respondents for abatement of the proceed-ings. This letter was sent by the advocate on 15.2.99 and was received by the present applicants only during the 1st week of March and thereafter, the applicants have moved this Hon’ble Court immediately without further loss of time.”.
We are not satisfied with the explanation set out above. Consequently, the application is rejected.
2. The application for substitution having been rejected, the appeal is dismissed as having abated.
