AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI

( 1 ) ON June 15, 1967, the Union of India filed an appeal in this court against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated March 4, 1967, whereby he had enhanced compensation by a sum of Rs. 4230 awarded in favour of one Kundan by the Land Acquisition Collector.

( 2 ) IN the appeal of the Union of India the sole respondent was Kundan. He died on July 27, 1971 leaving behind two son:, and a daughter.

( 3 ) THE appellant Union of India did not take steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record of the appeal. The appeal abated.

( 4 ) ON July 22, 1972. one of the sons of the decceased respondent, namely, Surat Singh made an application under Order 22 Rule 4 (3 ). Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the appeal of the Union of India had abated and the same be, therefore, dismissed with costs. This application was put up before the Registrar. On August 9,. 1972, he ordered that notice of the application should go to the Union of India. It appears that Surat Singh did not pay process-fee and notice could not issue. On September 6, 1972, the counsel for Surat Singh stated before the Registrar that he did not want to press his application as it was for the Union of India to take steps for setting aside the abatement. The Registrar dismissed the application on September 6. 1972.

( 5 ) NOTHING happened till December 19, 1975. As the Union of India did not take steps to set aside the abatement the office fixed the appeal before the court for orders on abatement. The appeal appeared in the list of December 19, 1975. Mr. Harish Chandra standing Government counsel appeared. He was apprised of the fact. of death of the respondent on July 27, 1971. At counsel s request the appeal was adjourned to February 6, 1976.

( 6 ) ON January 23, 1976. the appellant made two applications. One (C. M. 117 of 1976) was under Order 22, rule 4 and 9 and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing the two sons and daughter of Kundan deceased on the record. The other (C. M. 118 of 1976) was under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. By this order we propose to decide these two applications. .

( 7 ) THE question for decision is whether abatement should be set aside and the legal representatives be allowed to be brought on the record after a delay of four years or so.

( 8 ) TO return to the facts. Kundan, the sole respondent, died on July 27, 1971. His son Surat Singh made an application on July 22. 1972 which was dismissed as withdrawn on September 6, 1972. The case was fixed before the court on December 19, 1975, for orders on abatement. Mr. Harish Chandra appeared. He sought an adjournment.

( 9 ) THE land acquisition collector has made three affidavits, two dated January 23, 1976 and the third dated May 12, 1976, in support of the applications. In these affidavits delay has been sought to be explained. It lias been said that the Union of India did not come to know of the death of Kundan till December 19, 1975 when Mr. Harish Chandra informed the Ministry of Law on telephone about what had happened in court on that day. Mr. Harish Chandra was not the counsel in the appeal. Mr. C. K. Mahajan was the counsel engaged by the Uinion of India in the appeal. Mr. Mahajan s name did not appear in the list. Mr. Harish Chandra s name was shown in the list. Mr. Harish Chandra appeared in court on December 19, 1975. He was told that Kundan had died as far back as July 27, 1971. He informed the Ministry of Law on that very day on telephone, as is stated in the affidavit.

( 10 ) THE Ministry of Law. Litigation (HC) Section, wrote a letter to the Government pleader conducting the case on December 19, 1975 which was received by Mr. Mahajan on Jan. 5, 1976 on his return from winter-break. The counsel inspected the court file on January 6, 1976 and came to know that the sole respondent had died and his son Surat Singh had moved an application on July 22. 1972. which was dismissed on Sept

Click Here to Read the rest of this document