Honble MADAN, J.–This appeal (being directed against the impugned order dt. 19.8.1997 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City in Misc. Case No. 23/89 declining grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell), has come up before this Court for orders on the application dt. 4.12.2000 of the plaintiff appellant moved under Order 22 Rr. 4 & 9 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, which has been filed being time barred with 450 days delay from the date of expiry of the sole respondent Chauthmal who admittedly died on 23.9.1999 as per death certificate Ann.A.

(2). Facts in details are not stated as this order will dispose of only the applications of the parties. However, the facts in narrow compass are epitomised that the appellant plaintiff, a housing cooperative society is said to have entered into an agreement to buy an agricultural land of khatedar Chauthmal (respondent herein) situated in village Sukhalpura Teh. Sanganer of Khasra No. 9 measuring 20 bighas under an agreement dt. 4.12.1979 by paying a sum of Rs. 1100/- followed by another payment of Rs. 139075/- against sale consideration on 10.8.1980 with a remainder sale consideration of Rs. 123820/- payable at the time of registry. For specific performance of aforesaid agreement to sell the plaintiff society (appellant) instituted a suit in which a temporary injunction was sought by the society and counter claim was also filed for temporary injunction by defendant Chauthmal but, the trial Court after hearing both the parties declined to grant temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal.

(3). During the pendency of this misc. appeal, respondent- defendant Chauthmal died on 23.9.99 but his legal representatives were not brought on record within the prescribed limitation period of 90 days and application for bringing legal represen-tatives of Chauthmal has been filed after 450 days i.e. on 4.12.2000 under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 CPC; in reply to which, Shri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kailash one of legal representatives of defendant Chauthmal filed an applica-tion dt. 16.1.2001 praying therein for rejecting application of the plaintiff appellant and to treat the misc. appeal itself abated u/O. 22 Rr. 4 CPC. Factum of death of respondent Chauthmal on 23.9.1999 was not disputed but the facts stated in para 10 of appellants application of having knowledge as to the pendency of appeal came on 6.11.2000 when Shri Saket Pareek, Advocate telephoned the society to make payment of his balance fee, were denied, and in reply to para 11 by not admitting in the manner stated it has been urged by Shri Agrawal that the appellant society admittedly had knowledge of the death of respondent Chauthmal as per the averments made in para 11, rather the appellant society having obtained ad-interim stay order of status quo had indulged in causing delay in service of the notices in this appeal alongwith the stay petition and in this view of the matter the delay in making the present application for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent Chauthmal was not condonable.

(4). Application u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 450 days in moving the application under Order 22 Rr. 4 & 9 C.P.C. by the appellant was also filed on 4.12.2000 which was accompanied by affidavit of one Gopal Saini President of the society appellant and that of Saket Pareek Advocate, reply to which was also filed by Shri RK Agrawal on behalf of Kailash (L/R of Chauthmal).

(5). During the course of arguments, Shri G.L. Pareek for the appellant (applicant) reiterating the averments made in the application for bringing the L/R of Chauthmal on record contended that since the appeal was filed by one Tulsiram son of Gangaram Saini the then Secretary of the Society became disinterested in the work of society handed over the documents and file of the litigations in the societys office and it was on 6.11.2000 when the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document