IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, NISHA M. THAKORE, JJ.
Dilipbhai Kantilal Patel & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Udaji Kanaji Thakor & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2020 In R/First Appeal No. 2597 of 2024 With Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2023 In R/First Appeal No. 2597 of 2024 With Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 2 of 2023 In R/First Appeal No. 2597 of 2024
Decided On : 18-07-2024
Condonation - Civil Procedure - Limitation Act Section 5 - The court interpreted Section 5 of the Limitation Act to allow for a liberal approach in condoning delays in bringing legal heirs on record, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over strict adherence to timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The original appellant passed away during the pendency of an appeal, prompting the need to bring his legal heirs on record. The applicants sought to condone a significant delay in doing so, citing lack of knowledge about the death of the opponents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants provided a sufficient explanation for the delay and that the legal heirs were necessary parties to the appeal. The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice.
Issues: Whether the delay in bringing the legal heirs of the deceased opponents on record could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and whether the heirs were necessary parties to the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles for condoning delay should be applied liberally, focusing on the sufficiency of the explanation rather than the length of the delay, especially when no mala fide intention was present.
Result: The applications for condonation of delay and for bringing heirs on record were allowed.
ORDER :
Nisha M. Thakore, J.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2020:
1. With the consent and joint request of learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Varun Bharda appearing for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate on record for the applicants, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with Ms. Aditi Raol, learned advocate on record for opponent nos.6 to 10 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai appearing with learned advocate Ms. Venu Nanavati for opponent no.11.
3. This application is filed by the original appellants/plaintiffs for bringing the legal heirs of the applicant/appellant- Kantilal Joytaram Patel in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in F/First Appeal No.11156 of 2018 (registered as “R/First Appeal No. 2597 of 2024”). The original appellant- Kantilal Joytaram Patel is reported to have passed away on 04.11.2019 pending the restoration captioned appeal, which stood dismissed for default on 10.04.2018 and was subsequently restored on 29.04.2022.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has invited our attention to the averments made in the application and has submitted that legal heirs and representatives of the deceased original appellant no.1 are already brought on record i.e. applicant nos.2 to 5. In such circumstances, there is no delay in preferring the present application and has, therefore, urged before us to allow this application and to permit the amendment to be carried out in the cause title to reflect the name of applicant nos.2 to 5 as also the legal heirs and representatives of deceased original appellant no.1. The reliance was placed on the copy of pedigree, which is annexed along with this application.
5. Learned advocates appearing for the respective opponents as such had not objected to grant of the present application.
6. Considering the fact that deceased applicant no.1 is already represented through the applicant nos.2 to 5, who are the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased applicant no.1, we are inclined to allow the present application. Since the restoration application is already disposed of, the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased applicant no.1 are permitted to be brought on record in captioned applications as well as captioned appeal.
7. The present civil application stands disposed of, in aforesaid terms.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2023 AND CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2023:
1. Since all these applications essentially pertains to bringing heirs and legal representatives of deceased opponent nos.1 and 2, they are heard together and decided by this common order. These applications were taken up for hearing while hearing the main First Appeal on merits as the learned advocates for the respective parties have agreed to address the court on the merits of the case in the captioned First Appeal. Thus, civil applications are heard along with the main First Appeal.
2. Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 2 of 2023 is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 5860 days caused in bringing the legal heirs and representatives of opponent nos.1 and 2 and with a prayer to set aside the abatement, if any, in the facts of the case.
3. Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 of 2023 is filed seeking permission to join the proposed heirs and legal representatives of deceased opponent nos.1 and 2 in Civil Application No.1 of 2020 as well as in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in F/First Appeal No.11156 of 2018 (registered as “R/First Appeal No. 2597 of 2024”).
4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Varun Bharda appearing for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate on record for the original appellants/plaintiffs, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with Ms. Aditi Raol, learned advocate on record for opponent nos.6 to 10 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai a
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu vs Bhargavi Amma (D) Thr. Lrs
The court established that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays in procedural matters to ensure that justice is served.
Ignorance of law does not excuse procedural failures; a formal request to set aside abatement is essential when seeking to condone delay in joining legal heirs of deceased litigants.
Substitution – Limitation – For setting aside abatement of proceedings, court is supposed to strike a balance – There is no bar to exercise by Court/Tribunal, of its discretion, to condone delay in a....
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 court emphasized that delay in bringing legal heirs on record can be condoned if satisfactorily explained, promoting substantial justice over procedural rigidity.
Counsel must notify the court of a party's death and provide legal heirs' details; failure leads to abatement under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in bringing on record the Legal Representatives (LRs) of the deceased parties, a....
Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.