Courts can consolidate interrelated applications for substitution and delay condonation, and procedural rules should not impede the pursuit of justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.Nos. 1 to 4, who are the contesting opposite parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 09.05.2024, passed in M.C.A. No. 614 of 2023 [arising out of Original Suit No. 242 of 2019], by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ranchi, whereby, the petition for substitution has been allowed by the learned court.

3. Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the defendant No. 1 has left for his heavenly abode on 14.10.2022 and the learned court has allowed the prayer for deletion of the name of defendant No. 1 on 29.11.2021. He submits that the learned court has not found sufficient ground for condoning the delay, however, allowed the same in absence of any petition for substitution, the same has been done, in view of that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. He submits that the prayer of setting aside abatement was also not made.

4. Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 4, who are the contesting opposite parties submits that it appears that the limitation petition was not happily drafted, however, the prayer for condonation was made and admittedly the substitution petition was filed. He submits that the learned court has allowed the same in the interest of justice and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Admittedly, the defendant No. 1 has left for his heavenly abode on 14.10.2022 and the learned court has been pleased to condone the delay holding that sufficient ground is not made out, however, in the interest of justice, the said has been allowed.

6. It is well settled that mere title is not decisive for deciding the nature of the application. There appears to be no bar as such for filing consolidated application for the relief – one under Order 22 Rule 3 or 4 CPC and another under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . Even if Rules of procedure require for filing separate application for separate reliefs, even then, there can be no justification for filing 3 separate applications when the reliefs sought in three applications, which are connected or when reliefs sought are dependent upon reliefs required to be obtained for getting complete relief. By praying for condonation of delay and on condonation of delay by the order of the Court, the relief in application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC can be granted and when above two reliefs are granted, then only relief under Order 22 Rule 3 or Rule 4 CPC can be granted. These three applications – one for condonation of delay, another for setting aside of abatement and third for taking on record the legal representatives are required to be filed together obviously on the same day, than there is no reason to ask for three separate applications and three separate notices to other party for such interconnected matters. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that suit was for partition and for that consolidated court fees has been paid.

7. Even in a case where the relief of setting aside of abatement has not been specifically claimed, the court may consider the complete application to find out what is the prayer and if case is made out for condonation of delay and for setting aside of abatement of proceedings, the Court may condone the delay, may set aside abatement of the suit/appeal even without specific prayer. Relief of impleading of legal representatives of one of the party may be if case is made out on the basis of the facts pleaded in the app