The principle of 'sufficient cause' as per the Limitation Act and Order 22 Rule 9 CPC was applied to condone the delay and advance substantial justice.

ORDER

1. This second appeal arises against the decree for specific performance passed in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

2. During course of this second appeal, out of three appellants, appellant No.1 has passed away on 26.02.2020 and appellant No.2 has passed away on 19.03.2018, leaving behind their legal representatives named in the application.

3. An application (I.A.No.3/2020) under Order 22 Rule 3 has been filed to take the factum of death of appellant Nos.1 and 2 on record and to allow the substitution of their legal representatives in their place so as to pursue the second appeal on merits.

4. Since there is some delay in filing the application, a separate application (I.A. No.1/2020) under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay and an application (I.A.No.2/2020) under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC to set aside the abatement of appeal, if any, have also been filed.

5. It has been alleged that appellant Nos.1 and 3 are widow women and are illiterate ladies and they are not aware about the procedure to inform the counsel about the death of appellant No.2 on 19.03.2018. Later on, appellant No.1 passed away on 26.02.2020. Thereafter, due to pandemic Covid-19, an application for substitution of legal representatives could not file, thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, the delay in filing application under Order 22 Rule 3 is not deliberate and mala fide but just circumstantial.

6. Having considered the nature of dispute involved in the second appeal and reasons assigned for delay, this Court deems it just and proper to condone the delay and to set aside the abatement of appeal qua appellant Nos.1 and 2, operates by operation of law and allow the substitution of legal representatives in place of deceased appellant Nos.1 and 2.

7. Accordingly, applications (I.A. Nos.1/2020, 2/2020 and 3/2020) stand disposed of.

8. An application (I.A.No. 1/2021) under Order 22 Rule 10(A) has been filed by one Harphool Singh, alleging inter alia that he is the son of sole respondent-Kajod Mal. It has been mentioned in the application that the sole respondent-Kajod Mal has passed away on 15.01.2012. It has been alleged that this second appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 passed by the first appellate court and thereafter, the sole respondent has passed away, hence this second appeal has been filed against the dead person and the same be dismissed as abated.

9. Thereafter, appellants have filed application (I.A. No.2/2021) under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and application (I.A. No.4/2021) under Section 5 of Limitation Act and later on an application (I.A. No.3/2021) under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, alleging inter alia that right to sue survives against legal representatives of the deceased respondent, hence they may be impleaded as respondents and appeal may be allowed to continue.

10. Appellants have mentioned in their applications that the factum of death of respondent has come to their knowledge only after filing an application under Order 22 Rule 10(A) dated 16.01.2021, prior to that neither it was in the knowledge of appellants nor it came on record that respondent has passed away. However, soon after giving information of death of respondent, applications have been filed on 29.01.2021. It has been prayed that in such circumstances, the delay in filing applications may be condoned and the appeal may allow to be continued against legal representatives of deceased respondent by taking them on record.

11. Since, the son of the deceased respondent namely Sh.Harphool Singh has already appeared through advocate and filed application under Order 22 Rule 10(A) on 16.01.2021, copies of all three applications were served upon him. He has filed reply to the effect that the respondent had passed away on 15.01.2012 whereas this second appeal has been filed on 13.02.2012, hence this appeal was filed against the dead person and as such the same is not maintainable, accordingly, the appeal be dismissed. Reliance has been placed upon