SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Guj) 206

R.A.MEHTA
PATEL LALLUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI THROUGH HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES – Appellant
Versus
SHANKARLAL KALABHAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.J.PATEL, N.S.DESAI, Navin K.Pahwa

R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) ). The petitioners are the heirs of the original plaintiff who died during the pendency of the suit. Within five months of the death of the original plaintiff an application was made by the petitioners to join them and bring them on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. That application was rejected. Hence this Revision Application. The Trial Court held that as the application for bringing heirs on record was made beyond 90 days it was barred by limitation and there was no application and no prayer for setting aside the abatement and the suit has automatically abated on expiry of 90 days of the death of the original plaintiff. It was further held that the period of limitation of 90 days under Article 120 of the Limitation Act was from the date of the death and not from the date of the knowledge about the pendency of the suit wherein the heirs had applied to be joined. The original plaintiff had expired on 22-10-1989 and the application was made on 9-3-1990. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs Advocate had written a letter on 21-2-1990 to the original plaintiff and it was only then that the heirs learnt about the institution of







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top