The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of delay in impleadment of legal heirs, the court may allow the application to set aside the abatement if sufficient cause is shown, and a liberal approach should be adopted, considering the equitable aspects of the case.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - The present petition challenges two orders. The first is an order dated 27th September, 2018 by which an application for impleadment of the legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Respondent herein - landlady (hereinafter "landlady"). The said order dated 27th September, 2018 passed by the ARC was challenged before the ld. ADJ, which appeal was dismissed on 1st December, 2018. Both these orders have been impugned before this Court.

2. The submission of ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioners - tenants (hereinafter "tenants") is that whenever legal heirs are to be impleaded, if the same is not done within the time prescribed in law, the suit/petition stands abated and a vested right accrues in favour of the person against whom the petition was originally filed. Thus, unless there is sufficient cause, which is shown by the person seeking condonation of delay in impleadment of the legal heirs, the same cannot be allowed in a casual manner. It is further submitted that the reasons which have been given in the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC are also false, inasmuch as the landlady is quite hale and hearty. The averment in the application, that she is bed ridden, is also completely incorrect. It is also submitted that illness of the counsel''s brother is also a false stand as the said counsel was appearing in other matters before various courts including the fact that the brother himself, who is a lawyer, was also appearing in various courts. The tenants also rely upon the photographs of the landlady, to argue that she is definitely not bedridden and even the illness of the brother of the counsel is also not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

3. It is further submitted by ld. counsel for the tenants that the delay in seeking impleadment of legal heirs is more than 400 days. The death itself took place on 12th September, 2014 and thereafter, the details of the legal heirs was given to the landlady on 31st January, 2015. The Trial Court recorded on 1st July, 2015 that no impleadment application was moved and the first application was filed on 4th February, 2016 when a new lawyer was engaged. The landlady also does not have any grievance that the details of the legal heirs were not given. The first application was dismissed vide the order dated 8th February, 2017 on the ground that the application was shorn of detail and no sufficient reason has been given. Thereafter, a new counsel was engaged by the landlady, who moved the present application seeking condonation of delay and impleadment of the legal heirs, which was now, allowed by the Trial Court vide the order dated 27th September, 2018. He further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685 and Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High and Intermediate Education and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 311 to argue that if a person makes a false statement in an application for condonation of delay, the same should not be considered and the application ought not to be allowed. He further submits that a liberal approach cannot be taken in such cases where the party are guilty of placing the incorrect facts before the Court.

4. Ld. counsel for the Respondent - landlady, on the other hand, submits that the landlady is a widow and she was never provided with a list of the legal heirs of the Mr. JS Sharma. This is clear from a reading of the impugned order wherein no details were given as to when the names were furnished. Further, ld. counsel submits that Mr. JS Sharma - tenant passed away in 2014 and immediately an application was filed under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 8th February, 2017 and for the first time, the Trial Court recorded in the said order that the petition stands abated. Ld. counsel seeks to draw a distinction between an application under Order XX