IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Alok Aradhe, B.S. Walia, JJ.
Thoru Ram - Applicant
Vs.
State and Ors. - Respondents
LPAOW No. 10 of 2013 MP No. 12 of 2013
Decided On : 23-08-2017
Limitation - Substitution of Legal Representatives - The court held that in the absence of any provision for making an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, the dismissal of the appeal as having abated was not justified in law. The impugned orders were quashed, and the appeal was remitted to the Joint Financial Commissioner to allow the legal representatives to move an application for substitution and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the validity of the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the legal representatives of a deceased appellant due to failure to file an application for bringing on record the legal representatives within the prescribed time limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the appeal as having abated was not justified in law due to the absence of any provision for making an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party.
Issues: Validity of the order dismissing the writ petition due to failure to file an application for bringing on record the legal representatives within the prescribed time limit.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any provision for making an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, the dismissal of the appeal as having abated was not justified in law.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the appeal was remitted to the Joint Financial Commissioner to allow the legal representatives to move an application for substitution and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
Alok Aradhe, J.
In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one Thoru Ram filed an appeal before the Joint Financial Commissioner, Jammu with powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms against the order dated 28.08.1981. The aforesaid appeal was registered on 14.03.1986. The appellant passed away during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant sought time to file an application bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. However, no application was filed for a period of two years. The appellate authority thereupon by order dated 05.03.1996 dismissed the appeal as abated.
3. Thereupon a revision was filed against the aforesaid order before the Special Tribunal which rejected the same on the ground that the application for bringing on record the legal representatives on record was not filed within a prescribed time limit. Being aggrieved, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The learned single Judge vide order dated 20.11.2012 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no application for bringing on record the legal representatives was made before the appellate authority within the prescribed time limit. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra court appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no period of limitation is prescribed for moving an application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant and therefore the counsel for the appellant ought to have been granted the liberty by the Joint Financial Commissioner before dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 which deals with special powers of the officers which reads as under:
“20. Special powers of officers.- The Revenue Officers and the appellate and the revisional authorities, appointed by or under this Act, shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977 in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or on solemn affirmation;
(b) Production and discovery of documents;
(c) Proof of facts by affidavit; and
(d) Any other matter which may be prescribed;
and every such officer or authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989”
6. Thus from perusal of the aforesaid section, it is evident that the limited powers have been granted of Civil Court on the revenue officers as well as appellate and the revisional authorities while trying the proceeding under the provisions of the Act. In the Act, there is no provision prescribing the limitation for filing the application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party. In the absence of any provision for making an application for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, the Joint Financial Commissioner was not justified in law in dismissing the appeal as having abated. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Joint Financial Commissioner nor by Special Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has also failed to take into account the fact that no period of limitation under the Act for filing the application seeking substitution of legal representatives of the deceased party is prescribed.
7. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned orders dated 20.11.2012 passed by learned Single Judge and order dated 05.03.1996 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner, Jammu as well as order
AI
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.