Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Gordhanbhai Vitthalbhai – Appellant
Versus
Samuben Vitthalbhai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of the present writ-petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Botad on application below Exh.53 and Exh.54 in Regular Civil Suit No. 229 of 2015.
2. The said applications came to be filed by the original plaintiff for bringing the legal heirs of respondent - defendant no.1 – Savjibhai Vitthalbhai and respondent - defendant no.6 – Lilaben Vithhalbhai who expired on 20.11.2019 and 08.12.2021 respectively, pending the suit proceedings.
3. The concerned Court by the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 allowed the application for bringing the legal heirs of deceased respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively.
4. Being aggrieved by the order permitting the legal heirs of the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively on record, the writ-petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the said order passed by the concerned Court on the ground that the plaintiff was required to prefer an application seeking condonation of delay in bringing the legal heirs on record and that the Suit stood abated qua the respondent nos. 1 and 6, and therefore, an application seeking setting a
Courts must condone delay in substitution of legal heirs adopting justice-oriented approach over technicalities, enforcing pleader's duty under O.22 R.10A CPC.
No specific order for abatement of proceedings under one or other provisions of Order 22 is envisaged and the abatement takes place on its own force by passage of time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of abatement of proceedings under Order XXII of the CPC and the liberal consideration of the prayer for setting aside the abatem....
The main legal principle established is the liberal interpretation of procedural provisions to advance substantial justice and the consideration of the essence of the application rather than technica....
The court endorsed that execution proceedings require a distinct approach focused on ensuring timely justice, emphasizing delay condonation in favor of substantial rights over technicalities.
The court established that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays in procedural matters to ensure that justice is served.
High Court's exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction is limited to instances of patent perversity or gross failure of justice, not to correct mere errors of law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
