The limitation period does not deprive individuals of their legal rights, and the court must consider the circumstances and not shut the door against the suitor if the delay does not smack of mala fides.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners herein against the order of the Court below rejecting the application filed by them to bring them as legal heirs of the predeceased owner of the land.

2. The predecessor in title of the petitioners one Manicka Mudaliar died on 6.12.1993. Since his lands were acquired and the compensation had been decided in L.A.O.P.No., 82 of 1991 and the amount’ has also been deposited in the Court below,’ the petitioners filed the application to implead themselves as legal heirs in order to withdraw the compensation amount. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that the petition to bring the legal representatives was not filed by the petitioners within three years and hence, the petition now filed is barred by limitation.

3. On a careful consideration of the order of the Court below, I am-of the view that the same cannot be sustained. For the execution proceedings, it should be remembered that the provision prescribing the limitation to bring the legal representatives on record is not applicable as rightly observed by the lower Court. But, however, the Court below dismissed the petition to implead on the ground that the same was not filed within 60 days. It should be remembered that the L.A.O.P. had already been disposed of. The quantum of compensation was also fixed and deposited in Court. It is represented by the learned Government Pleader that they have no objection for the withdrawal of the amount by the petitioners herein. Hence, when there is no dispute with regard to the legal heirship of the petitioners, I am of the view that the Court below has totally erred in dismissing the application on the ground of limitation.

4. Hence, considering the fact that the compensation amount is already in the Court deposit, the petitioners being the legal heirs of the predecessor in title, the respondent is not prejudiced in allowing the application for bringing the petitioners as legal heirs on record. It is also to be noted that the petitioners want themselves to be impleaded as legal representatives not to continue any pending proceedings. The proceedings were over and reached the final stage. As the predecessor of the petitioners died without withdrawing the compensation amount lying in Court, the petitioners herein filed the petition for impleading and for withdrawal.

5. In a recent judgment in the case of Balakrishnan, N. v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1999 (1) LW 739, the Supreme Court held that the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act does not deprive any individual of his legal right. The Court must take into consideration of this aspect also and if only the other parties’ rights are affected by the conduct of one party, who did not take any steps within the prescribed period, then only, the order, adverse to the party, who is at fault, can be made. It has been further held as follows:

“It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.”

6. The order of the Court below is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.